The value of locally produced household cheese A study about the added value of locally produced on the market of Jönköping, Sweden.

Subject: Bachelor thesis within business administration

Authors: Viktor Kihlblom 920815-4394 Oscar Persson 921018-0791

Tutor: Erika Arévalo

Jönköping May, 2014

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration Title: The value of locally produced household cheese

Author: Viktor Kihlblom & Oscar Persson

Tutor: Erika Arévalo

Date: 2014-05-12

Subject terms: Locally Produced Household Cheese

Abstract The gained attention towards “locally produced” has made it to a hot issue in todays so-ciety. The uncertainty regarding the meaning of the term is high and the definition of “locally produced” differs a lot in the mindset of the consumers.

The purpose of this study is to define the term looking at the market of Jönköping and also to see how much “locally produced” matters to the consumers in Jönköping and how much added value they give it in relation to other important parameters. The study uses a mixed approach of both qualitative and quantitative information in form of a semi-structured interview, focus group and a conjoint analysis.

The limitation of the term, associations to the term, and the country of origin-effect in relation to the term are presented during different headings and subheadings in the em-pirical findings-section.

The limitation of the term was stated to be within the province of the consumers’ home location. The main associations to the term were price and quality, and the main motiva-tors of buying locally produced household cheese were to support the local business and having personal knowledge of the producer.

Furthermore, price and brand awareness were two factors that tended to sideline “local-ly produced” when consumers purchases cheese. Due to the price differences, it is stated that Swedish produced cheese (COO) is more preferable in terms of reality-based condi-tions.

i

Table of Contents 1   Introduction ............................................................................... 1  

1.1   Cheese and the market of cheese ........................................................... 2  1.2   Locally produced ................................................................................. 2  1.3   Delimitations ...................................................................................... 3  1.4   Disposition ......................................................................................... 3  

2   Specification of problem ............................................................. 4  3   Purpose ...................................................................................... 7  

3.1.1   Research questions ................................................................. 7  

4   Background ............................................................................... 8  4.1   Theoretical framework ......................................................................... 9  

4.1.1   Brand awareness .................................................................. 10  4.1.2   Country of origin ................................................................. 11  4.1.3   Types of buying decision behaviour ....................................... 12  4.1.4   Willingness-to-pay ............................................................... 13  4.1.5   Packaging ........................................................................... 14  4.1.6   Characteristics affecting consumer behaviour ......................... 15  4.1.7   Demographic variables ......................................................... 16  4.1.8   Consumer affecting variables ................................................ 17  

5   Methodology ............................................................................ 18  5.1   Time planning of method ................................................................... 18  5.2   Semi-structured interview .................................................................. 19  

5.2.1   Choosing subject .................................................................. 20  5.2.2   Identify possible informants .................................................. 20  5.2.3   Compose a guide for the interview ......................................... 20  5.2.4   Contact the selected informant regarding the interview ............ 20  5.2.5   Perform the interview ........................................................... 20  5.2.6   Organizing and processing of the gathered material ................. 21  5.2.7   Analyzing the interview ........................................................ 21  5.2.8   Present relevant result from the interview ............................... 22  5.2.9   Selection of informant .......................................................... 22  5.2.10   Grounded Theory ................................................................. 22  5.2.11   Shortcomings of a semi-structured interview .......................... 23  5.2.12   Performance ........................................................................ 23  

5.3   Focus group ...................................................................................... 23  5.3.1   The process ......................................................................... 24  5.3.2   Analyzing ........................................................................... 24  5.3.3   Selection of informants to the focus group .............................. 24  5.3.4   Shortcomings of focus group ................................................. 25  

5.4   Conjoint Analysis .............................................................................. 25  5.4.1   Design of the conjoint analysis .............................................. 26  5.4.2   Performing of the conjoint analysis ........................................ 27  5.4.3   Shortcomings of the conjoint analysis .................................... 27  

6   Empirical findings ................................................................... 28  6.1   Structure ........................................................................................... 28  

ii

6.1.1   Demographics ...................................................................... 28  6.2   What does consumers associate to locally produced, and what is important in the purchase decision? ............................................................. 29  

6.2.1   Price ................................................................................... 29  6.2.2   Quality ................................................................................ 31  6.2.3   Motivators ........................................................................... 31  6.2.4   Purchase decision ................................................................. 32  

6.3   What are the limitations in terms of geography? ................................... 35  6.4   Is country of origin (Sweden) more important than locally produced for consumers in Jönköping? ........................................................ 37  

7   Analysis ................................................................................... 39  7.1   Demographics ................................................................................... 39  7.2   What does consumers associate to locally produced, and what is important in the purchase decision? ............................................................. 40  

7.2.1   Price ................................................................................... 40  7.2.2   Quality ................................................................................ 41  7.2.3   Motivators ........................................................................... 42  7.2.4   Purchase decision ................................................................. 43  

7.3   What are the limitations in terms of geography? ................................... 44  7.4   Is country of origin (Sweden) more important than locally produced for consumers in Jönköping? ........................................................ 45  

8   Conclusions .............................................................................. 47  9   Discussion ................................................................................ 49  List of references .......................................................................... 50  10   Appendix ................................................................................. 56  

10.1   Semi-structured interview with Christer Lundin ................................. 56  10.1.1   Interview guide .................................................................... 56  

10.2   Focus group .................................................................................... 56  10.2.1   Focus group guide ................................................................ 57  

10.3   Codes from the semi-structured interview and focus group .................. 59  10.4   Conjoint analysis ............................................................................. 60  

10.4.1   Design of the conjoint analysis .............................................. 60  10.4.2   Age statistics of the participants in the conjoint analysis .......... 62  10.4.3   Diagrams from the conjoint analysis ...................................... 62  

1

1 Introduction The introduction part will introduce the topic of the thesis, and give the reader general information within the area

When you enter a store to purchase household cheese, do you evaluate your choice by price, origin or another attribute? Today we have many options when it comes to buying household cheese. There are cheap ones, stored ones, organic ones, imported ones and locally produced ones. Locally produced cheese has got increased attention past years and consumers found it to be more important today than earlier (Adams & Salois. 2010). The following study is focusing on the phenomenon “locally produced” in terms of branding and consumer behavior in Jönköping, on the Swedish market. The study will narrow it down to household cheese because there are no current studies on mixed products (several different ingredients). The authors of this study have done previous research in consumer behavior and have always been interested in food marketing. One can tell for sure that customers value attributes as freshness, high quality, packaging and taste when purchasing food, but locally produced has become more relevant and got increased attention in media the past years (Darby, Batte, Ernst & Roe, 2008). Even if the phrase has been declared as important there are a lot of uncertainty regarding what it actually means since it is slightly ambiguous (Adams & Salois, 2010). Some people only suggest their home region or society as local while other mean that the whole country could be considered as local (Sveriges Konsumenter, n.d.). This study aims to find out what consumers and companies actually think about when they hear the term locally produced. According to Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund in Sweden (n.d.), the demand of locally produced food has never been as high as now. As many as 40 % of the Swedish consumers believe that it is important that the food they are buying is produced regionally, and 95 % would buy more locally produced products if it were available in their local store. The main reason for this is to promote the local industrial life, small-scale production and to protect the environment through shorter transportations (Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, n.d.).

Furthermore, it is important to have a strong brand that differentiate itself from competitors, this study hopes to answer if a company can enhance their brand and strengthen its position on the market by using locally produced frequently in their marketing and branding. If the study can find a clear definition for the term and find out how much consumers value locally produced, a solution to the problem could be reached. This in turn can form the basis whether local producing manufacturers of cheese should use it in their marketing.

2

This study is part of a course and are designed to improve the understanding of consumer behavior towards food.

1.1 Cheese and the market of cheese There are many different types of cheeses, but one of the most common is the full-cream cheese. The full-cream cheese is a dairy product and has a high fat content (Box-holm Mejeri, n.d.).

In Sweden people consumes nineteen kilos of cheese per year in average. Even if Swe-dish cheese is the one that is most consumed, the sales of imported cheese has in-creased. In the last ten years the sales of imported cheese on the Swedish market has re-duplicated (Byström, 2013). The competitive advantage that imported cheese gains to-wards Swedish cheese is primary the price. Foreign producers get a surplus of milk in certain periods, which enable a quick production of cheese to a low cost. The price that foreign producers can offer their cheese at is out of reach for the Swedish producers (Byström, 2013).

One possible reason to why the sales of Swedish cheese is declining could be that Swe-dish producers miss innovation and creativity. They do not produce new types of cheese, but have focused on rationalizing the manufacturing process instead (Byström, 2013). The declining of Swedish cheese is chocking since there is a big demand for lo-cally produced cheese in the country (Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, n.d.). It is argued that the explanation could be that this is the result of a marketing failure from the producers (Byström, 2013).

1.2 Locally produced Locally produced is a complex term that does not have a well-known definition. While a product that is labeled as “organic” have to fulfill a lot of demands regulated by gov-ernments, locally produced is a more fluid concept that does not have those regulations (Adams & Adams, 2011).

While Adams and Adams (2011) found that consumers defines locally produced very differently in terms of miles, they claim that locally produced actually is about ethical factors rather than the geographical location. For consumers, it is more important that the product is produced in a sustainable and environmental-friendly way than it is pro-duced within five-mile radius for example. Toler, Briggeman, Lusk & Adams (2009) can also confirm this theory, they state that fairness is a very important element for con-sumers when buying locally produced products. Thus, one have to be aware of that even if a product is locally produced, it does not automatically mean that it is environmental-friendly. Economical factors or a lack of interest can make the farmer to produce the product in a way that is not good from an environmental point of view (Hinrichs, 2003).

Bondens egen marknad has stated that the product have to be produced within an area of 250 kilometers from the selling spot in order to have the right to be called locally pro-

3

duced (Bondens egen marknad, n.d.), while the Department for environment, food and rural affairs (2003) argues that 30 miles (english measurement) is a reasonable limit.

1.3 Delimitations The study will be narrowed to consumers of the city Jönköping, mainly because there are not many studies within this area on the Swedish market. Another reason is due to the fact that the authors are located within this area. There are certainly different types of cheeses and the focus in this study will be on household cheeses.

1.4 Disposition The second chapter of the study includes the specification of problem. The problematic of the topic is described. The third chapter describes the purpose of the thesis; it explains why the thesis is written and what the aim of the thesis is. The fourth chapter consists of the background that describes the relevance of our study; the reader shall be able to understand its significance. Previous research is presented and the second section of the background contains the theoretical framework. The fifth chapter includes the description of the methodology that will be used in the thesis. The sixth chapter presents the result of the study. The empirical findings will be presented to the reader in a logical way. The seventh chapter consists of the analyses of the study. The analysis of the empircal findings that is connected with the result will be introduced. The eight chapter presents a summarisation of the conclusions drawn from the study, and its relation to the purpose. The ninth chapter contains the discussion of the study. The tenth chapter contains of the appendixes, such as interview sheets, data codings etc.

4

2 Specification of problem The specification of problem part will introduce the problem of the research area and gives a motivation to why this study is justified

There is a gap in the consumers’ mindset regarding the term locally produced. Previous studies within the subject of locally produced groceries show that there is not a clear definition that could be applicable to the term (Wreting-Clarin, 2010). The consequence of this is that it slows down the development of the term and how companies should translate it to their consumers (Hingley, Boone & Haley, 2010). The problem has rised since the term is not well defined, and in previous research a gap is identified. That gap get even more important since there is a high demand for locally produced food in Swe-den today (Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, n.d.). To answer this problem, one must explore what the consumers in Jönköping associates with the term locally produced, which at-tributes that are important and how much it is valued in comparison to those other at-tributes. Studies in the U.S. have shown that there is an actual demand for locally produced products. Darby et al. (2008) concluded that there was a consumer demand for locally produced food. One indicator that emphasized the demand of locally produced food was that it was an independent factor and not linked to any other factors. From previous research, differences between American and Swedish studies within the subject of locally produced products can be seen, but both came up with interesting conclusions that are relevant. In the U.S., locally produced is related to high quality and low price. Furthermore, it is associated as something that is good for the society (Gal-lons, Toensmayer, Bacon & German, 1997). Gallons et al. (1997) also highlight the de-creasing importance of organic food and one cannot ignore that this could depend on trends. In Sweden, locally produced is related to high quality, environmental consciousness, and a high price (Gustafsson & Rokotova, 2012). Both these definitions are very general and cannot be representative for household cheese since the researcher used milk and strawberries in their surveys. However, this is the closest that can be found about asso-ciations to the subject. These two studies also show that the term is very ambiguous and that the definition of locally produced vary between countries and consumers. Darby et al. (2008) highlights the problem to limit the term, their conclusion was that many of the consumers thought that locally produced food should be produced within the region or the state. One must be critical and conclude that this might not be the case in Sweden and Jönköping, since there are differences between the U.S. and Sweden. This is a problem since the country of origin effect (COO) could be more relevant in Sweden, rather than a Swedish province limit.

5

So, there is a big uncertainty within the subject. Since the term has no clear definition companies does not know how to take advantage of “local produced” in their marketing, and consumers does not know if the household cheese really is locally produced in rela-tion to the definition in their mindset. Household cheese buyers are in need of a defini-tion statement. If this study could define locally produced and find out to which extent consumers value it (In Jönköping), explicit guidelines for how companies should use it in their marketing can be created. Therefore, first one need to define the subject to make clarity. Secondly, the term has to be put in relation to other factors affecting the consumer in the moment of purchase, to really find out how much extra consumers are willing to pay for locally produced cheese and what they are associating the term with. It is also important to know how much locally produced is valued in relation to other factors. Furthermore, Adams and Salois (2010) states that the consumers perception of locally produced food has increased significantly past year, the willingness to pay for locally produced food is following the same pattern. Plentiful research is also done when it comes to “fixed products” such as vegetables, while there is not much information at all when it comes to “mixed products” such as cheese. Based on the willingness to pay, one can tell how much consumers’ value locally produced products in comparison to other factors. So, the willingness to pay responds to how much consumers value locally pro-duced. When the definition is stated there is a problem when it comes to setting the term in re-lation to other factors. Some consumers are willing to pay extra for locally produced cheese, but not all target groups. There are some segments that value locally produced higher than others in relation to other factors. Since Sweden is a smaller country than the U.S. there is uncertain whether consumers’ value COO higher than locally produced, or if brand awareness is a stronger value be-cause of the low involvement. In a study based in the U.S., Darby et al. (2008) concluded that males were most willing to pay extra in order to get locally produced products. This indicates that there are cer-tainly some target groups that are more willing to pay extra for locally produced house-hold cheese than others in Sweden (Jönköping). One must take into account the net in-come of the target groups as well. In Sweden, locally produced household cheese is in general perceived as a cheese with a higher price, while a cheese that are imported is perceived as cheaper. Ockelbo Ost for example, has a lower price since they are buying their milk from the Netherlands (Sve-riges radio, 2013 November 23).

6

Summarized, there is a need of a general definition for locally produced(Wreting-Clarin, 2010). However, as mentioned earlier focus will be on household cheese in the market of Jönköping. How locally produced affects consumers perception of cheese, lo-cally produced limitations and attributes associated to the term. There have been many studies on locally produced food, but no one regarding its influence of household cheese. The hope is that this study will give a clear definition of locally produced cheese, in the customer’s, and to find out how much locally produced is valued in rela-tion to other qualities, such as price, brand awareness, COO and packaging.

7

3 Purpose The aim with this study is to give the term “locally produced” a definition that is applicable to the market of Jönköping. Furthermore, the study will also show how much it matters for the consumers in Jönköping that household cheese is locally produced and how much value they put in it.

3.1.1 Research questions

- What does consumers associate to “locally produced” and what do they consider when they purchase locally produced household cheese?

- What are the limitations in terms of geography? - Is country of origin (Sweden) more important than locally produced for

consumers in Jönköping?

8

4 Background The background part will introduce previous research within the subject and further-more, introduce the theoretical framework

During the past 30 years the term “locally produced” has never been stronger than it is today (Adams & Salois, 2010). Local production has got a lot of attention, and consum-ers in Sweden regularly associate local production with high quality (Gustafsson & Ro-kotova, 2012). Globalization has made it harder for consumers to know the products country of origin (Okeckuku, 1994). It has got even more attention since there have been several meat scandals in Sweden last couple of years. The one that got biggest at-tention was when the well-known company IKEA used horse meat in food that was said to only contain beef (Svenska Dagbladet, 2013). But even if the demand for locally pro-duced seems to be high, the sales of Swedish produced cheese is declining while im-ported cheese sales is increasing. It is especially low-price cheese that is popular among Swedish consumers (Byström, 2013). Previous studies made in the U.S. shows that locally produced food achieves a lot of at-tention. The value of locally produced did increase from 4 billion dollars 2002 to 5 bil-lion dollars in 2007, and is expected to increase even more (Tropp, 2008). Big corpora-tions have observed this trend, Wal-Mart have put more focus on locally produced now and offer ingredients from local farms (Guptill & Wilkins, 2002). Furthermore, it is unclear what Swedish consumers consider as “local” in terms of pro-ducing and selling, it could be the area around the city as much as the province. Country of origin could be greater or equally important as locally produced. In Darby et al.’s (2008) study made in Ohio, U.S., it appears that locally produced is associated with the state that the consumer live in rather than the local community when speaking about ge-ographical limitations. By knowing what consumers in Jönköping understand as local and how much value they put in it, companies in the region could get an advantage in their marketing and branding. However, a study made in U.S. argue that consumers use the term “locally produced” as a value description, a value assurance, rather than an in-surance that the product is made within a certain area (Adams & Adams, 2011). The project Miljösmart mat defines locally produced as “food, where the production, processing and distribution to consumers occur within a “delimited area” (Livsmedelssverie, 2008). They also state that the products can be produced far from the consumer, thus there is no distance-limitation regarding the range between the home lo-cation of the consumer and where the product is sold. Bondens egen Marknad, (n.d.) on the other hand defines locally produced as a grocery that has been produced within a ra-dius of 250 kilometers. These definitions differ a lot from each other. This may be be-cause people perceive locally produced in different ways. Since the interest and demand for locally produced food have increased past years a problem have occurred; people do

9

not really know what locally produced is and which demands a locally produced prod-uct have to fulfil (Adams & Salois, 2010). Because of the uncertainty regarding the term, a study that clarifies locally produced is needed and justified (Wreting-Clarin, 2010). Furthermore, it is hard to say how much locally produced is worth to consumers in terms of money, i.e. if they are willing to pay a premium price to get locally produced products and that is a way of seeing how consumers’ value it. There have been done some work regarding whether locally produced is an important term or not, and for whom it could be important to. Some main controversies within the area are the defini-tion of the term that is mainly essential. There is a need of defining it (Wreting-Clarin, 2010) and to find out how important it is for consumers in Jönköping and if they are willing to pay a premium price for it, that due to that many researchers have focused on the development of the American market. Adams and Salois (2010) describes that the development of the subject has increased successfully. A need for research about the question on a part of the Swedish market is justified. In a previous research regarding willingness to pay for locally produced products re-searchers found out that the willingness to pay for locally produced is as big as the will-ingness to pay for a freshness guarantee (Darby et al., 2008). Thus, they conclude that the term locally produced food is independent of other varia-bles. Darby et al.’s (2008) American study emphasizes that locally produced is associat-ed with freshness and “anti”-corporate image. A Swedish study, on the other hand, points out that less environmental impact, support for the local business and good hus-bandry is some of the main associations with local production (Gustafsson & Rokotova, 2012). This might indicate that locally produced in general is independent from other variables. But the previous research is at most very general. If consumers are willing to pay more for local food, companies can use it in their marketing by clarifying that their products is locally produced (Darby et al., 2008), and in that way increase their selling. Therefore, dairy businesses could take advantage of this term. The following study will now focus on the Swedish city Jönköping, which is located in the southern part of the country. It will also focus on the dairy-product household cheese.

4.1 Theoretical framework The theoretical framework will analyse the data that is gathered. The theories that are going to be used in to analyze the empirical findings are brand awareness, country of origin, types of buying decision behavior, willingness to pay, packaging, characteristics affecting consumer behavior, demographic variables and consumer affecting variables.

10

4.1.1 Brand awareness

Brand awareness is a big influencing factor for consumers’ when buying household cheese; it creates a picture in the mindset of the consumer and builds recognition. Ros-siter and Percy (1987) define brand awareness as the customers’ capacity to identify its logo or brand under different types of circumstances. Brand awareness consists of two parts: brand recall and brand recognition. Brand recall describes whether a consumer as-sociate to the brand when referring to a particular product category, and brand recogni-tion is whether the consumers is able to differentiate the brand that they have been ex-posed to earlier (Keller, 1993). Furthermore, Hoyer and Brown (1990) defines brand awareness as the rudimentary level of the brand awareness where the consumer should at least be able to recognize the brand name.

Aaker (1996, p.114) defines brand awareness as “the salience of the brand in the cus-tomers mind”, and he divides brand awareness into six different parts, and those are recognition, recall, top-of-mind, opinion, knowledge and dominance. Recognition is the consumers ability to recognise the company, recall is the proportion of brands a con-sumer can define in a sector and top-of-mind is the first brand it recognises within a sec-tor. Furthermore, brand opinion is when a consumer have an opinion about a brand. Brand knowledge is if a consumer know what the brand stands for in form of values, brand dominance implies if a consumer does only recall one company in a sector.

Companies that are offering low involvement products, such as household cheese, want to create brand awareness with the purpose to affect the consumer in the moment of purchase (McMahon, 1980). To accomplish that companies tend to use repetitive adver-tisements that creates a consciousness regarding the brand in the consumers mindset, and they become comfortable with the brand (Bogart, 1986). To show the importance of brand awareness when it comes to low involvement products such as household cheese, previous studies indicates that consumers in blind tests cannot determine their preferred product (Hoyer & Brown, 1990).

Brand awareness is certainly important when it comes to low involvement products, it is surely important for unexperienced consumers concerning to make a new decision, and consumers that are aware of one brand and chooses between several brands tends to choose the recognized brand independently from the quality (Hoyer & Brown, 1990). Consumers’ evaluation step changes when the consumer gets more experienced and to summarize, one can determine that brand awareness has big affect on consumers’ choice of low involvement product. An advertisement that focuses on increasing the brand awareness could be very effective (Hoyer & Brown, 1990).

One could argue that brand awareness could be a dominant factor when consumers are set to choose cheese, since it is a habitual buying it is easy for consumers to just choose a cheese that they are familiar with. Thus, factors like locally produced. might be side-lined.

11

4.1.2 Country of origin

A marketer can create associations to a product in many ways, branding and marketing are the most consistent tools companies uses. But another factor that have a clear impact on consumers perception about the quality of the product is the nation that it is made or designed in (Ahmed, Johnson, Yang, Fatt, Teng & Boon, 2004). This factor is known as the country of origin effect. The COO factor has got even more attention since the globalization break through (Pecotich & Ward, 2007). This factor has its biggest impact on consumers when a judgement of the product has not, or cannot be made. Then the COO is used as a tool, the country’s reputition and image are the two elements that is valued (Lantz & Loeb, 1996). According to previous studies consumers may use COO in one or two ways; the first way is when consumers perceive and value the product along of the experiences or perception of the country, if a consumer wants to buy a car, they may associate a car that are produced in Germany with good quality since Germans produces great cars in general. In this case the COO enhance the product, and works as a “halo” for the product. The second way is the opposite to the first one. If consumers have bad experience from the country that the products have been made in, the perception will be negative. In this case, the COO lower the perceived quality of the product. If this is the case, the COO can be called a summary of construct (Han, 1989). If a marketer is aware of how the country that the product is associated with is perceived, it can either be enhanced or minimized in order to get greatest effect (Ahmed et al., 2004). It is also argued whether COO is more important for consumers with less knowledge and experience about the product (Pecotich & Ward, 2007). However, Pecotich and Ward (2007) found that country-of-origin is important for consumers with both much and less knowledge about the product, especially when they evaluate the price and qual-ity of the product. Moreover, Pecotich and Ward’s study was made about high involvement products, such as computers. Since cheese cannot be considered as a high-involvement product, COO has to be described in a perspective of low-involvement products. Ahmed et al. (2004) suggest that COO does affect the moment-of-purchase when buy-ing low-involvement products such as cheese in the same way as high-involvement does, but not to the same extent. The purchase decision is shorter regarding food and consumers tend to choose after experience, knowledge or recognition rather than after COO, i.e. a strong brand is more important. But it is also suggested that when a low-involvement product becomes more expensive, when the price gets higher, COO be-comes more important for consumers (Wall, Liefel & Heslop,1991). Moreover, if the country has a reputation of producing good quality the product may be preferred by cus-tomers (Wall et al., 1991).

12

The COO theory is used in this study since there is uncertainty if locally produced is equal or more equal important than COO when consumers buying household cheese.

4.1.3 Types of buying decision behaviour

Consumer behaviour differs dependently on which type of product the consumer is buying (Assael, 1998). Complex buying indicates that the consumer is involved on a high level, since the product is generally expensive and there are a big difference between different brands. It could for example be “purchasing of a car”, the consumer want to learn about different features of the product and create beliefs and in that way procure an attitude, and thereafter make a decision (Assael, 1988). This part is not relevant for this study since household cheese is not considered as a high involvement product. Dissonance-reducing buying behaviour means that the consumer is involved at a high level. But unlike complex buying behaviour, there are not many differences between company’s offerings. Even though there is a small difference between companies, consumers tend to search around to be able to evaluate the choices available, it is a fast process. The post-service from companies is very important here, the consumers may perceive dissonance and then the companies need to be prepared to support the consumer. Regarding household cheese, consumers is faced by many different choices from different producers in the store. So one can conclude that this buying behavior is not applicibale on householde cheese. Habitual buying behaviour is the third type of buying behaviour where there is a low level of involvement, and there is also a tiny difference between company’s offerings. These purchases works more as a habit rather than brand loyalty, the consumer just walks to a store and purchases the product habitually, but the brand awareness factor cannot be denied. In comparison to the complex-buying behaviour, the consumer does not search actively for information or evaluate the purchase before buying. The consumer and the brand does not form a relationship, instead the consumer just chooses the chosen brand since it is familiar. To create a competitive advantage when it comes to low-involvement products one must emphasize the price in ads, or actively work with sales promotion (Assael, 1988). The last type of buying behaviour is the variety-seeking buying behaviour. The consumer acts with a low level of involvement but unlike the habitual buying behaviour, there are differences between the companies offerings. The consumer may buy a product, and thereafter evaluate. Next time when the person will buy the same product, one might choose another type because of simply boredom. The trading of type must not depend on dissonance; the consumer just might want to seek for variety. Companies want to make it to a habitual buying behaviour, by using repetitive

13

commercials for example. The respond from competitors usually is lower prices and free samples. Due to this one could argue that brand awareness should be raised.

There is a lack of literature that states whether household cheese is a low- or high involvement product. However, low involvement products are characterized as being bought frequently and that little effort is put into the choice of product, since it does not have any effect on the consumers lifestyle. High involvement products are on the other hand associated with high capital value and is psycological important to the buyer, cars and jewelries are typical high involvement products (StudyMode.com, 2010). In this study, household cheese is defined as closer to a low involvement product since it matches better with its description, rather than a high involvement product. Furthermore, the fact that household cheese is a low involvement product means that consumers does not put a lot of engangement in the choice of product, but there are many other factors influencing the consumers. To be even more specific, household cheese can be seen as a variety-seeking behaviour product (Arora, 1982). This means that the consumers involvement and engagement in the purchase is not high high, since the price is low. Generarly, this also means that consumers does not have a plan about exactly which cheese they are going to buy before entering the store, the decision is taken in front of the shelves. Therefore, brand awareness is an important factor that affect consuemrs choice of cheese (McMahon, 1980). Due to that consumers make a quick decision when purchasing cheese, it is normal that the consumer picks a product habitually and then the choice tends to fall on a product that they know about or has a tempting price. Therefore brand awareness should be raised and companies could more clearly try to create a local touch in the mindset of the consumers. Furthermore, consumers value locally produced differently and a measurement of the importance of locally produced could be pronounced through their willingness to pay.

4.1.4 Willingness-to-pay

Consumers’ valuing of locally produced could be measured in different ways, and the willingness to pay is a way of seeing how consumers’ value locally produced.

When a company is about to set a price for a product there are two concepts that can be used to measure how much a consumer would pay for the product. The concepts are reservation price and maximum price. The reservation price is the line where the con-sumer is neutral to buying the product or not. The maximum price on the other hand is the price difference between the product that the consumer primary wants and the se-cond best alternative. Maximum and reservation price togheter stands for willingness-to-pay, which is the maximum price the consumer will pay (Breider, 2005). For marketers, willingness-to-pay mainly is about understanding how consumers make choices between different products with different prices. However, consumers

14

repeatedly has a maximum price that they have valued the product to in their mind, this is known as the reservation price. To decide what to buy consumer then compare the actual price to the reference price (the imaginary price) and buy the one with the most favourable difference (Kalish & Nelson, 1991). When talking in terms of cheese, willingness-to-pay could also be described as consumers willingness to pay a premium price for specific products in order to get certain qualities (Darby et al., 2008). In Sweden it is known that locally produced is linked to a higher price in comparison to a regular price (Gustavsson & Rokotova. 2012). There are a lack of studies about the subject in the area of Jönköping, which makes it uncertain regarding how high consumers in Jönköping value locally produced and if they are willing to pay a premium price in order to get it, there are many competetive brands with lower prices which local products compete with. Jekanowski, Williams & Shiek (2000) concludes that if consumers have a specific relationship or bond to an area, province or city, they are repeatedly more willing to pay a premium price for locally produce food. This could be to support the local business (Adams & Salois, 2010). In a study made 2011 in Florida Adams and Adams (2011) found that 68 % of the people they asked were willing to pay extra for locally produced food. Many previous studies have enlightened that the willingness to pay a premium price for locally produced food has increased past decades (Adams, Salois. 2010). Thus, one have to consider the price differences regarding locally produced in the U.S. and Sweden.

4.1.5 Packaging

Consumers entering a store have generally not yet decided which product they will de-termine to purchase. Especially not when it comes to low involvement products such as household cheese and other food products (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). One of the main communication tools between the consumer and the brand is the product package, and companies in the low involvement businesses need to put a lot of work with their pack-age to attract the consumer in the moment of purchase. The fact is that packaging is the most important factor when it comes to convince the consumer in the moment of pur-chase (Prendergast & Pitt, 1996). Cheese is considered as a low involvement product and many companies within this business try to catch the consumers’ attention in the moment of purchase. Thus, the package is really important.

One can argue that packaging could be particularly important for locally produced cheese, if it is communicated on the package which farm the milk of the cheese comes from, the consumer might have some personal relation to it and that could play a role.

When it comes to the decision-making the package have four purposes to fulfil, which could be separated into two different parts; informational aspects and visual aspects. The informational elements consist of product information and product technology (Si-layoi & Speece, 2004).

15

The product information is most important for products that are characterized by a high involvement from the consumer; the information stated on the package helps the con-sumer to make a good decision (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Though, this is less important for our study since household cheese is stated as a low involvement product. Packaging technology generally comes from certain accurate trends regarding the consumer behav-iour and products.

The visual aspects consist of graphics, colours, packaging size and shape. The graphics and colours consists of the layout of the product, which could be formed of colours, pat-terns and typography. These mentioned factors are highly influencing the purchasing decision for low involvement products (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Furthermore, graphics and colours are two important elements when affecting consumers in the moment of purchase of low involvement products (Grossman & Wisenblit, 1999). Since household cheese is stated as a low involvement product, one can argue that companies should try to work hard with their packaging since their consumers mainly determine their choice of household cheese in the moment of purchase. Many consumers perceive the product as the package.

Colours are certainly critical since consumers have different colour associations and some consumers associate certain colours to certain product areas (Grossman & Wisenblit, 1999). Thus, using colours on the package may have a big impact on the consumers and especially when the consumer is associating the colour to a specific brand (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Colours can also be connected to the country and it is not a long shot to argue that the COO is equally important as within the region.

These visual elements are most important for this study since it is them that are most in-fluencing when it comes to low involvement products, such as household cheese.

4.1.6 Characteristics affecting consumer behaviour

In Sweden locally produced products are associated with a high price in relation to general products (Gustavsson & Rokotova, 2008), and there may be some segments that are more price sensitive. Because of that they are not able to buy locally produced household cheese on a regular basis.

Furthermore, consumers shopping habits is changing and the age-factor is relevant for this study. Brooker, Eastwood and Orr (1987) came up with that a higher age had a positive impact on the willingnes to pay extra for locally produced food in Tennessee. Moreover, one can assume that elder people are willing to pay extra for locally produced household cheese and therefore, value it higher. Age and life cycle stage is a parameter since persons do not purchase the same food products during their whole life (Kotler, Armstrong, Wong & Saunders, 2008). That indicates that the purchase behaviour changes as well, the age differences is

16

characterized by differences regarding social life and psychological differences (Wells & Prensky, 2008). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a good description of how persons are driven by their needs (Maslow, 1970). According to Maslow’s classical theory the most important steps are chronologically psychological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, cognitive needs, aesthetic needs and self-actualisation. The logic in this model is that the person fulfils the most basic one first and so on (Maslow, 1970). Houehold cheese and food, is partially a psychological need that a person consumes to survive (Maslow, 1970). But when it comes to locally produced cheese, it could satisfy another element in the hierarchy of needs. When a consumer purchase locally produced cheese it is mainly because they care about good husbandry, the local businesses and the environment, according to Gustavsson & Rokotva (2012). This indicates that locally produced products satisfies the third or the fourth element of the theory. Adams and Adams (2011) suggests that the purchase of locally produced food is an intersection between the consumers perception and belief regarding the food system in general, and that simultaneously interact with aspects such as availability, economical barriers and other typical barriers. Since locally produced cheese are considered as more expensive than non-locally produced cheese one can argue that demographic factors of the consumers may have an impact.

4.1.7 Demographic variables

As mentioned previously, the age of a person affects the purchasing behavior. Many studies made in the U.S have showed interesting results that have enlightened this. Many studies have also showed that people with higher income also tends to buy more locally produced products (Jekanowski et al., 2000). One could suggest that there is a link between the age and the income since elder people tend to have more money to spend than younger people (Antonidis & van Raij, 1996). The gender is also something that previous studies paid regard to. Antonidis and Van Raij (1996) defines both “the male market” and “the female market” to clarify that there are differences between the purchasing behavior between men and women. Darby et al. (2008) concluded that males were more likely to purchase locally produced products. That might indicate that males show larger preferences to buy locally produced household cheese in Jönköping, Sweden. Education is also linked with a higher income. Nayga, Govindasamy, Wall & Thatch (1995) concluded that shoppers of locally produced products were mainly middle-aged females that had college education, and the income was above average. Consumers that are environmentally conscious also tend to be more willing to pay extra for locally

17

produced products (Brown, 2003). Therefore, environmentally conscious consumers in Jönköping, Sweden might be more willing to pay for locally produced cheese. Though, one has to be critical of this statement since Brown’s study was made in the U.S., and locally produced is associated with quite different aspects in the U.S. and Sweden.

4.1.8 Consumer affecting variables

Govindasamy, Italia and Liptak (1997) found out that taste, freshness, health value, cleanliness and absence of pesticides are the most important and highest valued attrib-utes for consumers when buying locally produced products. The same research also concludes that organic food is lower valued today than before in comparison to locally produced food (Govindasamy et al., 1997). What should been taken in mind is that this study is made in year 1997 and it ignored ethical based values that are assumed to be important today.

When comparing different attributes to each other, it is important to separate traditional attributes from more ethical based attributes. For Swedish consumers, ethical factors are factors such as good husbandry, supporting local farmers and less environmental im-pact. (Gustavsson & Rokotova, 2012). Gabriel and Lang (1995) define these new ethical factors as a new wave of consumerism. More recent studies have put their focus on the-se ethical factors, and that is a big drive for purchasing local food.

Recent years, buying locally produced alternatives has become sort of a trend among consumers (Adams & Adams, 2011). Brown (2003) suggests that consumers repeatedly associate locally produced food with supporting local businesses and the environment, and according to Adams and Salois (2010) this, sustainable growth methods and ethical work within the food system are the main motivators for consumers in the U.S. Accord-ing to Darby et al. (2008), supporting local business was among the top reasons to why consumers buy locally produced. But it was not until recently it was confirmed that “fairness” is an important factor for consumers (Toler et al., 2009). According to Adams and Adams (2011), locally produced is about sustainable production, ethical and com-munity factors.

18

5 Methodology In the methodology part a deeper explanation of the research approach will be present-ed.

Previous research within this area have mainly used quantitative data when they studied this subject. To collect data to this study, the authors will use both quantitative and qualitative data in order to get a deeper understanding in the topic. The qualitative data collection will contribute with deeper answers and findings regarding how consumers thinks about locally produced, while the quantitative method will show how consumers in Jönköping generally value locally produced against other attributes and alternatives, such as country-of-origin, brand awareness and so on. The data that is gathered through the qualitative method is also partially a foundation to the quantitative method. Primary, to precede the purpose of this study a choice-based conjoint analysis will be used as a method. As a pre-step to the conjoint analysis a semi-structured interview and a focus group will be carry through. Green, Krieger and Wind (2001) suggests that internal corporate knowledge and information from consumers could be used as a pre-step to the analysis. The purpose of this pre-step is to gather information in order to develop a set of attributes that are going to be used in the conjoint analysis (Green et al., 2001). These attributes are going to represent elements that are important for consumers when they buy cheese (Green et al., 2001). Attributes are functions and elements of the product such as price, style, design, quality and packaging (Wyner, 1992). To get as much data and information as possible for this study, a mix will be used. A mix of qualitative and quantatitive research gives many advantages when exploring complex questions. The use of mixed research gives greater evidence for the empirical findings (Driscoll, Yeboah, Salib & Rupert, 2007).

The semi-structured interview will be held with the CEO of Boxholm Mejeri, Christer Lundin. The hope is to get access to internal corporate knowledge about how they use locally produced in their branding and marketing. The focus group will remain of people that represent consumers of Jönköping. The purpose with the interview and the focus group is to get information about how consumers perceive locally produced and other factors that are important to them when they are buying household cheese.

5.1 Time planning of method First of all a semi-structured interview with the CEO of Boxholm Mejeri and a focus group is going to be performed. The focus group is going to consist of five members that represents consumers of Jönköping. Toghether, the two methodologies will give enough information to develop attributes for the conjoint analysis as well as information that could answer some of the research questions. The interview will give access to internal corporate knowledge about locally produced, and the focus group will

19

contribute with the consumers experience and perception of locally produced and in also terms of household cheese. After the first part is done the information that is gathered will be processed, the data will be coded and the parameters and attributes that are important for consumers when buying cheese will be analyzed. Now, the conjoint analysis will be designed, and which questions that will be used is determined and how many people that are going to be involved as well. After performing the conjoint analysis the result and analysis will be compiled from the information that is gathered and the analysis will be presented.

5.2 Semi-structured interview Previous studies (Dalen, 2007) suggest that the purpose with an interview is to obtain important and well-defined information about how other people experience different things in life. This method is a good tool to use when one wants to get insight about peoples thoughts and experiences from a product for example. For this study it is decided that a semi-structured interview was the best-suited method for a part of the purpose; to get internal information from a company that operates in the cheese business and to define important attributes for the conjoint analysis. Dalen (2007) also states that an interview is a good tool to use to complement another method, in this case the conjoint analysis. This thought is also supported by other sudies, such as Green et al.’s. study made in Missouri (2001). A semi-structured interview is a method that is commonly used when a researcher want to get qualitative data about a certain subject. Furthermore, a semi-structured interveiw is a qualitative methodology that is concentrated on a certain topic that the researcher has identified in advance. Unlike fully structured interviews, where one use predefined categories that the question and answers should stay within, semi-structured interviews is free and the researcher should use open questions in order to give the informant the opportunity to express their own thoughts about the subject (Dalen, 2007).

When structuring the interview there are several steps that should be done before, during, and after the interview (Dalen, 2007). These steps do not necessarily need to be done in the order listed below, the important part is to structure and to organize them. These steps are:

- Choosing subject and frame problems with it. - Identify possible informants. - Compose a guide for the interview. - Contact the selected informant regarding the interview. - Perform the interview. - Organizing and processing of the gathered material. - Analyzing the interview. - Present relevant result of the interview.

20

5.2.1 Choosing subject

The first step is to decide which subject that is going to be researched. After this, the researcher shall gather information about the subject by searching through literature within the topic in order to get background knowledge of what has already been done. When this is done it is time to narrow down the purpose of the interview and formulate problems. This step is supposed to give the researcher a sufficient background to designing the questions in the interview. The subject that is going to be researched in this case is, as mentioned earlier, locally produced household cheese. Information have been gathered, mainly from previous studies and articles within the subject of locally produced.

5.2.2 Identify possible informants

The researcher may already have a clue about whom they want to interview before this point, but it is important to explain why this particularly person is chosen and on which criteria. The choice of informant is of great importance in qualitative interviews. Dalen (2007) states that there should not be to many interviews since every interview consumes much time. However, it is of great importance that the interview that is being done contribute replete information and quality that it gives a sufficient basis to the analysis. The identified informant in this study is Christer Lundin.

5.2.3 Compose a guide for the interview

This part is particularly important in a semi-structured interview. This guide should include the central part of the subject and questions that together will cover the most important part of the study. The work in this part is to convert the problems that are identified in the first step to problems with underlying questions that is used in the interview (Dalen, 2007). Dalen (2007) suggest that one should start the interview with some gentle questions, for example questions that are in the periphery in relation to the key issues in order to get the informant relaxed. After a while the focus should turn to the central theme though. It is important to be profound when designing the questions, the information you get from the interview is going to be the material one are going to work with, it is significant that this information is of great quality. The interview guide made for the interview with Christer Lundin can be found in the appendix.

5.2.4 Contact the selected informant regarding the interview

In this step it is time to contact the informant that has been identified in earlier stages and check if they are willing to perform an interview.

5.2.5 Perform the interview

When performing the interview it is important to remember that it is the interviewed person’s thoughts and feelings that is of interest, meaning that the researcher should try to not involve own feelings or moralize the answers (Dalen, 2007). Regarding the questions it is generally a good tip to ask the informant to “describe something” instead

21

of just asking a “yes or no”-question in order to get a deeper answer. It could also be a good idea to use research result and ask the informant to give its opinion on it (Dalen 2007). To not miss or forget any information from the interview it is common to use some type of tape recorder (Hove & Anda, 2005).

5.2.6 Organizing and processing of the gathered material

Now when the interview is done it is time to gather, organize and process the material that is collected. The first thing to do is to transcribe the interview, meaning put the interview down on paper. When transcribing, it is important to write down everything that’s been said or happened during the interview, even quite moments could be important. One should also consider social factors that appear in the interview (Halkier & Torhell, 2010). Other thing besides the interview that is important is relevant facts about the informant, such as age, place of residence for example. Next step is to interpret and analyze the data. When doing this, there are two concepts that could be useful for the reader to know about and understanding the differences. The concepts are experience near and experience distant. Experience near regards the informants phrase when speaking about something, the word the informant use and how it is said. This is regularly the basis for the citations that later is used in the study. Experience distant is more analytical and the researcher is now allowed to put own thoughts and interpretation from the interview. When doing experience distant the researcher has gone from an interpretive to an analytical level. After this it is time to consider which theoretical approaches to use.

5.2.7 Analyzing the interview

One of the most important parts when analyzing the material is coding. Coding could be defined as the process when theories are built from data. Strauss and Corbin describe the process as when the researcher breaks down the data that is gathered in little pieces, theorize them and put them together in new ways (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a). The researcher has to go trough the material and describe what it actually is about. The purpose is to find categories that helps understanding the data in a better and more academic way, to get a deeper understanding of the material (Dalen, 2007). This categories can also be used to structure the empircal findings. The process of coding consists of several levels, which could be described as different types of coding. Strauss and Corbin (1990a) describe these levels as open, axial and selective coding. These three types of coding together constitute the process of coding and are dependent of each others (Dalen, 2007), but the researcher does not necesseraly perform them in the order stated below (Pandit, 1996).

5.2.7.1 Open coding

Open coding is the first part of coding, it is very general and the purpose is to identify phrases that can be put into categories. These categories should be connected with a

22

problem and a solution to it. Later the categories are being compared to each other and one try to find patterns in them. Pandit (1996) refer to this part as when the researcher is labelling and categorise the phenomena that is specified by the data.

5.2.7.2 Axial coding

Axial coding is a form of description of behavior and is a good tool when one wants to describe experiences (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a). The purpose of axial coding is to contextualize a happening, reactions from the informant, the reason to the reaction and consequences of the reaction (Dalen, 2007). Axial coding is about identifying connections between the categories.

5.2.7.3 Selective coding

Selective coding is the last part of coding and is to summarize the categories that have been identified in open coding and their relationship to each other. The purpose is to get an understanding of which categories or phenomenon that are fundamental in the subject (Dalen, 2007). The result of this part should be to identify a “core category” which is the central theme of the study (Strauss & Corbin, 1990b). The core category is all categories that are identified joined and connected together. To understand the central categories better the researcher could create theoretical models.

5.2.8 Present relevant result from the interview

The result could be described as either state images or models that enhance the understanding of the results. The state images are predicated on the experience distant described earlier in this study; general descriptions from the informant’s statements. The models are being processed and developed ongoing and are based on the researchers theoretical perspective and the material that is gathered (Polkinghorne, 1995). It is important that the results that are being presented in a way that appears like a proposal for the subject more than complete truths (Söndergaard, 2001).

5.2.9 Selection of informant

The informant that have been identified is, as mentioned earlier, the CEO of Boxholm Mejeri, Christer Lundin. The choice of Christer Lundin is based on his knowledge within the area. As CEO of a company that produces locally produced cheese Lundin could give the study valuable information about how they as company perceive locally produced and how they use it in their marketing. Another intention with the interview is to get information to that will be needed for the attributes in the conjoint analsis.

5.2.10 Grounded Theory

There are many different tools one can use when analyzing the empirical data that is gathered, but one of the most common used regarding qualitative research approaches is Glaser and Strauss theory, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The theory that was founded in the 1960s use the data that is collected as a basis for the theories that are going to be developed. Dalen (2007) suggests that it is the informant’s opinions and

23

perspectives that should be the benchmark for the analysis and theories. The most important part is that the theories that are developed should be completely based on the empirical data, and the analytical concept that is created should derive to the empirical data in induction (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). One of the most fundamental parts of grounded theory is coding, where the data is broken down and compared in an iterative process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

5.2.11 Shortcomings of a semi-structured interview

A weakness with interviews are if the informant does not feel confident toward the researcher, which could lead to shorter answers and less information and data to work and analyze after (Dalen, 2007). Another problem could be that the researcher is feeling unease and circumvents important subjects in the interview because the interviewer feels discomfort (Dalen, 2007). Since one of the authors also has contact with the informant in his job it can affect how the data is interpret and analyzed, it is important to be objective and indifferent to the information one gets (Dalen, 2007).

5.2.12 Performance

The interview was performed in Boxholm Mejeri’s conference room, and much relevant information was gathered.

5.3 Focus group Focus group is a qualitative methodology that could be described as a crossing of unstructured interviews and participant observations (Morgan, 1997). Focus groups are a good way to provoke a discussion about the subject that hopefully could lead to a deeper explanation of consumer behavior, the face validity of focus groups is general high since the result regularly refers to direct quotations from the group (Hylander, 2001). The method is commonly used when one wants to investigate consumers attitude and value towards somehing (Hylander, 2001), in this case locally produced household cheese. The collection of the data is composed by open questions that is asked by a moderator. In this way, directing the discussion too much can be avoided which could lead to more correct answers from the participants.

A focus group should consist by 4 to 12 participants (Kight, n.d.) and a moderator (Halkier, Torhell, 2010). How many participants a group should consist of rely on the topic that is being researched and the involvement of the participants. In generally, small groups generate more specific ideas while larger groups develops more ideas. A risk with bigger focus groups is that every participant gets less time to speak and express their opinions. The hope is to get as specific and concret answers as possible from the members of the focus group (Hylander, 2001). For this study, the focus group is going to consist of five members. The resarcher feels that this is a good size for the purpose, since a deeper discussion about the subject is requested, in that case, a smaller focus group is to prefer over a larger one.

24

A critical part of focus groups is to choose people that have much knowledge about the subject that the researcher wants to investigate. It is also important that the members of the group match with each other and dare to open up and share their experiences, it is therefore essential that the members are at the same level educationally (Merton, Fiske & Kendall, 1990). Hylander (2001) suggests that preferably is if the members do not know each other at all, but share mutual knowledge and interests. To summaraze, the purpose of the focus group is to collect qualitative data, the group consists of members with someting in common, interest, knowledge or education, and the members discuss about a specific subject or theme (Hylander, 2001). This tool is chosen since a deeper discussion about locally produced is desired by the researchers, then a focus group is a good alterntive.

5.3.1 The process

Before performing the focus group it is a good idea to prepare a “topic guide” where general questions is stated. The focus group should start with an introduction by the moderator where the members get background information about the purpose of the focus group, and what the researcher hopes to find out. A tip is to start with a general statement and then ask a member what they think about it, gradually other members of the group will join the discussion and the activity has started. The main task of the moderator is to ask questions about what is being discussed, ask the members to elaborate more if more information is needed and keep the flow in the discussion (Hylander, 2001). It is essential that the focus group is being recorded so that everything can be transcribed afterwards (Halkier & Torhell, 2010). The question that was asked in the focus group can be found in the appendix.

5.3.2 Analyzing

There is no specific theory that is better suited than other regarding focus groups, if the interview is transcribed to text all qualitative theories could be used. Grounded theory can be applied for the focus group and this theory will, as well as for the interview, be used to analyze the data contained from the focus group (Hylander, 2001).

5.3.3 Selection of informants to the focus group

A variety of different kinds of informants were preferred for the focus group, in terms of gender, marital status, age, income and so on. This was desired in order to cover dif-ferent targets groups and to get opinions from people in different stages in their life. Since the subject that the focus group talked about is narrowed and very specific, five participants were chosen to get a deeper discussion. The aim was to get five people that did not knew each other, but late defection made that impossible. The informants that participated in the focus group was;

25

Johan O, 50-year old salesman, Tinno, 48-year old occupational therapist, Lena, 48-year old logistics manager, Johan K, 25-year old warehouse worker & Alexander, 21-year old student.

Unfortunately, no participator was over 50 years old, which means that the segment of people between 50-75 years old is not represented. This is something that the research-ers have taken in mind during the analysis of the data. All participators come from and live in, or around the area of Jönköping city, which was a demand from the researchers. The focus group went well and important information for the study was collected.

5.3.4 Shortcomings of focus group

The disadvantage with using a focus group as a methodology is that the participants could affect each other’s opinions and thoughts, and if the dynamic of the groups does not work, the members could retain instead of stimulate each other (Hylander, 2001). The method is not a suitable tool if the purpose is to collect data about the consumers’ daily life. Buying cheese is not something that consumers may put a lot of time on when choosing among products, this could lead to a misleading result when the participants get a lot of time for consideration. There is also a risk that the result from the focus group is not going to be representative since they are only a several people included (Halkier & Torhell, 2010), and if the members have not knowledge about the subject the focus group could generate incorrect and irrelevant information (Hylander, 2001). The analysis of the result from a focus group could be quantitative, but the numbers that is being presented is only representative for that particular focus group (Hylander, 2001).

5.4 Conjoint Analysis Conjoint Analysis is a method that is frequently used in market research, the approach reveals which features and attributes that consumers values high in a product or a service. It does also give indications of why a consumer prefer one product or brand over another. Green et al. (2001) suppose that conjoint analysis is the most used method in marketing research when investigating consumer trade-offs. When using conjoint analysis one identifies attributes of the product that is perceived as important for the consumer and which is interesting for the study. Selecting which attributes that are going to be used is the most critical part when using conjoint analysis, they need to be representative for the product, but at the same time independent Green et al., 2001). When deciding which attributes to use one can arrange a focus group or use internal corporate expertise if accessible. After this is done, a profile or survey is designed which the respondents should answer. The respondents is supposed to value the attributes in terms of how important the elements are for them as individuals. When the conjoint analysis was designed for this resarch, information from the interview and focus group was used in order to get accurate questions.

26

During the conjoint analysis, the participant is faced by two or more options with different attributes and has to choose which alternative that is more preferred. Another way is to ask the participants to rate the attributes instead, from a scale of one to five for example, which was done for this study. The choice that the participant makes show which attributes (e.g. locally produced) that is value as important. Conjoint analysis can also show if a consumer is willing to compromise one attribute (e.g. higher quality) against another (e.g. lower price), to indicate which is most important (TechWise, n.d.). Conjoint analysis shows how consumers argues and takes decisions on routine-basis.

This study will use a choice-based conjoint analysis, where different product profiles or options is compared to each other, and the participant has to rank them after how they value them. This kind of survey is more realistic than traditional questionaries (Sawtooth Software, n.d.). This method is commonly used when the reasearcher wants to investigate price sensitivity, brand equity or branding and packaging (Sawtooth Software, n.d.). In this case the participant will be faced with four different options, where different factors is going to shift. This method is better suited for this study than a normal survey, since conjoint analysis shows how particpants values attributes against each other and which characterstics that are of great importance.

5.4.1 Design of the conjoint analysis

The conjoint analysis started with five questions regarding demographics. First, the par-ticipant was asked if they was a man or a woman. This question was asked to see if one gender tended to buy more locally produced cheese than the other one. In the second question the participant was asked to specify their age, where the alternatives was be-tween 18-20, 20-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55 and 56 years or older. The purpose of this question is similar to the first; to see if locally produced is more popular in a certain age. The third question regarded if the participant had post-secondary education or not, this question gave the researchers the chance to see if post-secondary education has any-thing to do with buying locally produced products. The fourth question was about the participants’ annual income before taxes, where seven alternatives were given. This question was asked to see if, and how much income impact the willingness to buy local-ly produced household cheese and furthermore, research the price sensitivity. The last question in the first part was about how much the participants were willing to pay for household cheese in general. This was asked to see if earlier questions had any impact on how much they where willing to pay for household cheese. The design of the con-joint analysis used for this research can be found in the appendix.

In the second part of the conjoint analysis the particpants were faced by different options that they where suppose to grade in a scale from one to four, where one is most important while four was the least important attribute. The different options had different characteristics and symbolized different household cheeses. In the first question, the type of cheese differ between the options, where one option was locally produced, another was Swedish produced (country-of-origin), one was organic

27

produced and one imported. The taste and the price was the same for all alternatives. This question was suppose to give an indication of how consumers value locally produced against the other alternatives, when all other conditions were equal. In the second question a change was added in form of price. Now the alternatives where priced after real prices on the market. The purpose of the question was to reveal how locally produced stood up against price and how price sensitive consumers are. In the third question another change was added, now the different alternatives had different qualities regarding taste. The locally produced option was the one with poorest taste, while the other altenratives had better. This question indicates how important locally produced is to consumers in Jönköping in comparison to taste.

The last two questions was different in relation to the earlier ones, now locally produced as a attribute was compared to other attributes such as brand awareness, packaging, place on shelve and price. The participants were asked to grade which one that influenced them most in the moment of purchase. In the last question the participants were asked which factor that was most important to them when buying locally produced household cheeses. The alternatives were developed from the result of the focus group and interview, and was supporting local business, environmental friendly, personal knowledge and animal keeping.

5.4.2 Performing of the conjoint analysis

The conjoint analysis was performed outside four different groceries stores; three su-permarkets and one smaller grocery store. Persons entering the store were asked to par-ticipate in the conjoint analysis. The performance went well and all ages are represented in the study, even if the segment 18-20 years old is smaller than the other ones. To avoid misunderstandings, participants were instructed of how to fulfil the conjoint anal-ysis. The researcher decided to not ask people under the age of 18 to participate, since it is not likely that they purchase their own cheese and one has to have their parents’ ap-proval for them to participate. The study has examined 100 consumers on the market of Jönköping. Since Jönköping have a population of approximately 130 000, the margin of error is at 10 % (Surveymonkey, n.d.).

5.4.3 Shortcomings of the conjoint analysis

One weakness with conjoint analysis is that the purpose of the study is hard to redesign since the survey is very depending on which attributes that are being used. If, for example, you need to remark an attribute that has not been used earlier, the survey is not accurate anymore (Stanford Transportation Group, n.d.). Another disadvantage with conjoint analysis could be that the participants feels delimited and have to approach attributes that one normally does not take in consideration when buying a particularly product. If the study is not done appropriate there is a risk that the answers is valued emotionally and not concrete (Lizerman, van Til & Bridges, 2012).

28

6 Empirical findings In this part, the empirical findings from the semi-structured interview, focus group and the conjoint analysis will be presented. To make the result appropriate, quotes and ta-bles are going to be presented.

6.1 Structure The empirical findings will be presented in three categories, connected to the research questions of the study. The codes that were developed through the semi-structured in-terview and the focus group will be used as subheadings. The data from the semi-structured interview, the focus group and the conjoint analysis will be presented in this section. However, the demographics will be presented in the beginning, in order to give an indication of how education, age and income influences how much consumers are willing to pay for household cheese.

6.1.1 Demographics

Regarding if post-secondary education influences individuals willingness to pay for cheese, the result from the conjoint analysis shows that there are just a slightly differ-ence, where consumers with post-secondary education seems to be willing to pay a little bit more than consumers without post-secondary education. The diagram is attached in the appendix.

The conjoint analysis shows that when consumers is up to choose which alternative they prefer between locally produced, Swedish produced, organic produced and imported, women are overrepresented among those who choose locally produced as their number one option.

Results from the conjoint analysis showed that different age-segments were willing to pay a different amount of money for household cheese. Ten of eleven participants in the age-segment 20-25 years old were willing to pay 60:-/kg or less for household cheese. The most popular choice for people in an age between 36-45 was 60-80:-/kg. The ma-jority of the participants between 46-55 were willing to pay between 80-100:-/kg for household cheese. Statistics from this question can be found in the appendix. From the results of the conjoint analysis, one can read that income has a certain impact on how much money consumers’ in Jönköping are willing to pay for household cheese in general. Men seem to be willing to pay more if they earn more, while the answers from the women are well diversified. This can be found in the appendix.

29

6.2 What does consumers associate to locally produced, and what is important in the purchase decision?

The association of locally produced household cheese and what the term means to them are presented through different categories. The categories are price, quality, motivators, and the purchase decision.

6.2.1 Price

To which extent consumers on the market of Jönköping values locally produced and how much they are willing to pay for it in comparison to other products has been a per-sistent question when talking about locally produced. During the focus group, it ap-peared that consumers were willing to pay more for locally produced, but not too much. A reasonable price according to the focus group would be 20 crowns per kilo more than an imported product.

“Oh my god… If we talk about price per kilo, a cheese that has a price per kilo of 75:- and one that has a price per kilo of 120:-, then I take the one that cost 75:-, then the dif-

ference is to big. If the difference is 10, 20:-, then it is okey.”

- Johan O, 50

Christer Lundin, CEO of Boxholm Mejeri, states that he does not think that consumers will buy locally produced if it is too expensive, at least not when it comes to regular household cheese. However, if it is a small, local store that just acts in a limited area, value is added and people are ready to pay more for it than they usually would do.

“But with the cheese or whatever it is, if it cost 30 % more a regular consumer wont buy it”

- Christer Lundin

A participant from the focus group also suggested this, and said that locally produced food feels more exclusive, since it is a small-scale production. “It feels a bit exclusively to buy this locally produced, because it is regularly more ex-pensive than other alternatives. You do a thing around it and are on a farmers market and it is a bit exclusive. You go there and get small bags and present bags so you have

done a thing around that. It could be either a pro or a con.”

- Tinno, 48

Lundin suggests that people can priority locally produced food even if they have lower income, and choose to not spend as much money on other products. So companies that produce local products can not choose target group after income anymore, instead other parameters can be interesting, such as political sympathy, where Lundin believe that

30

people that votes for Miljöpartiet (environmental friendly political party) are more like-ly than others to buy locally produced products. “Today one can have lower income but priority to buy organic or local food instead of other things. At the same time a person that have a higher income can priority to eat on

fancy restaurant instead of which food to buy at home, the cheapest could be good enough. You may want the best olive oil but for other things cheaper alternatives can be

enough.”

- Christer Lundin From the conjoint analysis, one can also see that a majority of the participants were willing to spend between 60-80 or 80-100 crowns per kilo on cheese. These two alterna-tives got 72 % of the choices together.

Lundin believe that price have a very large influence on consumers when they are about to buy household cheese. Even if consumers think that they want Swedish produced food when they are going to the store, they more often than later choose according to price, even if it means that they have to buy an imported product instead.

“We have seen many customer surveys where one has interviewed customers before they enter a store; if you ask them what they are going to buy they say Swedish pro-duced food, organic etc. But when same customer gets interviewed when leaving the

store you can se that that’s not what they have bought, they have chosen after price, or after supply and demand.”

- Christer Lundin

Most participants agreed with this, saying that the price is the most important factor when buying household cheese.

“The price is the No. 1 priority”

- Johan O, 50 The conjoint analysis shows that locally produced are more preferable than imported cheese when the taste and price are equal. However, when the price of locally produced household cheese is raised to 129:-/kg and the price for imported cheese is declined to 89:-/kg, many of the participants prefered the imported cheese above the locally pro-duced cheese. The main part of those that earn 120 000 kr or less tend to choose import-ed cheese rather than the locally produced one when the price differs. A table over the statistics is attached in the appendix.

31

6.2.2 Quality

Locally produced cheese is associated to high quality, mainly because of the high price, according to the participants of the focus group. This does in turn lead to a higher de-mand towards locally produced household cheese in comparison to imported and cheap-er alternatives. If locally produced costs more than other products, it should have higher quality to match the demand of the consumers. Ethical factors, such as buying an envi-ronmental-friendly alternative or supporting the local businesses are not enough for consumers.

“It is also associated to the price I think, it is more expensive and then I should get some added value. And it shall be the quality.”

- Johan O, 50

“Yes, price and quality is connected. “

- Johan K, 25 Some of the participants of the focus group pointed out that they think that the products have greater quality, mainly because of that the production was closer to their home lo-cation. Locally produced is also associated with sustainable production.

“You think that you know that it is good things. But you do not have any clue, but it gives a hint about it. You consider it as good since it is from here. A bit more personal.”

- Johan O, 50

“I agree, I get the idea that it is better stuff in the cheese if it is from Falköping, Småland or Västergötland instead of Denmark, Germany or somewhere.”

- Alexander, 21

6.2.3 Motivators

The main reason and motivator for consumers to purchase locally produced food is to support the local business. Some participants highlighted that they feel like they con-tribute to the society when they buy locally produced products. It is to support the locality. And it is good environmentally, it is not the most important

thing but it impacts for sure.

- Johan K, 25

“If I would know which farm that produced it, it would be fun to buy that particularly cheese, and then it becomes more personal. “

- Alexander, 21

32

The result from the conjoint analysis also gives an indication that consumers on the market of Jönköping think that supporting local business is the most important motiva-tor when buying locally produced household cheese. 37 % of the participants choose it as their number one motivator to buy locally produced household cheese. The three sales outlets in Sweden where Boxholm Mejeri is most popular indicate the same thing, supporting the local business is a big motivation for consumers when they are buying household cheese. The entire top three of the sales outlets are located just a few miles from Boxholm.

“They are the two biggest, City Gross buys 7-8 tons and Signalen in Linköping buys 5-6 tons, after that there are a bigger gap to the third biggest. But if you compare them to

our local store here in Boxholm that sells 30 t, that one sells 3 or 4 times more than the others. “

- Christer Lundin

Personal knowledge about the farm enhances the feeling for locally produced, and adds value to the product. Small-scale business and local patriotism are two other motivators in order to purchase locally produced products. The result from the conjoint analysis shows that about a quarter of the participants believe that personal knowledge about the farm or the society is the most important factor when buying locally produced. But the main part of the respondents valued this factor a lower motivator.

“The local patriotism, the knowledge about the persons behind the business, that is im-portant when talking about purchase decision.”

- Johan O, 50

“It’s like a farmer market; even if their product is a lot more expensive I can buy the cheese there because I want them to sustain their business.”

- Lena, 48

The two other alternatives in this question, whether which factors that were most im-portant for consumers when buying locally produced household cheese, were environ-mental friendly and animal keeping. The statistics from the conjoint analysis showed that these two factors was not top valued by the main part of the participants.

6.2.4 Purchase decision

Regarding the purchase decision, Lundin states that consumers may have an idea what they want to buy before entering the store, but the decision is taken when the consumer stands in front of the shelves and evaluates the supply of cheese.

33

“A consumer may have an idea that they should buy cheese when they arrive to the store, but it’s rare that they already have decided that they are going to buy “arlas prästost” or “Boxholms borgmästarost”, in general they decide that in the store.”

- Christer Lundin

For consumers, locally produced is not the most important thing in the purchase process and decision. For many, taste and price are the two main factors that settle which prod-uct they will buy. Locally produced is perceived as kind of a bonus, not a decision set-tler, neither something that they search actively for in the store. Another factor that mat-ters for consumers is whether they recognize the brand or not, many consumers tend to choose product that they have experienced before.

“The taste primarily, that is what I think of first. It should be a well-aged cheese. Sec-ondary, the price is something I take in consideration. Those two are the main factors I

think is important”

- Tinno, 48

“Secondary it could be important that I recognize the product, who the producer is and where it’s from, which taste it has, and sometime I may buy a more expensive cheese because it has the taste I want. But price is of course important, cheese isn’t so cheap

today.”

- Lena, 48

“Since we are talking about locally produced, that is a kind of bonus. If the packaging states that it is locally produced or the product is Nyckelhålsmärkt it is a bonus.”

- Johan O, 50

“So locally produced is not the most important aspect? No, it may come on third or fourth place…”

- Johan O, 50

The result from the conjoint analysis follows the statement from the focus group. Only 23 % perceived that locally produced had a big impact on their purchase decision, while as much as 33 % considered it as the third largest. Brand awareness was the most influ-ent factor on consumers in the purchase decision, as much as 41 % of the participants considered it as their top influence factor. Price is the second biggest influence factor, 34 % perceived it as very influencing in the purchase decision (Table 6.2.4.1.).

34

Table 6.2.4.1. Purchase decision influencers. The purchase decision seems to be taken very fast, consumers does not spend a lot of time around the shelter scanning the supplement. One participant from the focus group pointed out that he usually knew what he wanted before going to the store and simply picked it up as fast as he come to the store. He did not put a lot of engagement in the decision. I often take a very fast decision, I know what I want before and just pick that when I ar-rive to the store, at least regarding cheese. Other products I may engage myself more in, but regarding cheese I know approximately what I want. I don’t spend much time

around the shelter.”

- Johan K, 25

Since household cheese is a low involvement product, Lundin said that their marketing strategy rather is about getting their products on the best shelves and to convince the consumer in the moment of purchase. Because of the short time spent on the purchase decision, Lundin believes that it is important to have a good spot in the store.

“To conclude, much of our marketing plan is to support the shelf and the purchase de-

cision”

- Christer Lundin

It also seems that consumers in Jönköping is sensitive to trends and are willing to try something if people in their surroundings talks about it. Media does also influence some consumers, at least for the moment, but that primarily when it comes to animal carrying, not regarding cheese.

41  

23  

34  

5  2  

0  5  

10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45  

Brand  Awareness  

Locally  Produced  

Price   Packaging   Shelve  Spot  

35

“If many people in your surrounding talks about something you of course try it. It de-pends on how trendy it is, so if many talks about it you will taste it at least. In any case I

would. “

- Johan K, 25

6.3 What are the limitations in terms of geography? Earlier studies has suggested that locally produced is an ambiguous term that consumers struggles to define, statements from the focus group confirm this statement. Location is one of the things that are described when talking about locally produced.

“It is quite hard… We talked about it the other day, locally produced in particular, what it really is. I have spent a lot time thinking about it and I haven’t come to an an-swer yet, but locally produced for me is something within this country, that is locally

produced for me.”

- Johan O, 50

“Close geographic is the first thing a think of”

- Alexander, 21

Consumers from Jönköping seem to limit locally produced to the province that they lives in (Småland), or the one that they grew up in. On the question about how they de-limit the term everybody answered Småland, and some added Västergötland, which is the province west of Småland.

Yeah, but it is probably Småland if we shall think locally.”

- Tinno, 48

“I perceive locally produced as… Since I come from Mullsjö, Småland and Västergöt-land, Falköpings milk. That is locally produced for me, more than Arla for example.”

- Johan K, 25 Boxholm is located in the province northeast of Jönköping, and is not considered as lo-cal, neither is their cheese, according to almost everyone in the focus group. Even if Boxholm has approximately the same distance to Jönköping as other producers that were perceived as locally produced, the participants did not recognize them as a local alternative. It is stressed by the participants that the ability to be able to relate to the place where the product is produced in is important.

“No! It is not from our part of the country.”

- Lena, 48

36

“11 miles, you don’t consider that as far away. But if you say Boxholm, it sounds far away.”

- Alexander, 21

Lundin’s answer regarding the question if locally produced goes along with these statements, he clarifies that consumers in Jönköping do not perceive Boxholm Mejeri as a local producer of cheese.

“To sum it up, here in the local area, maybe in Jönköping too, there, we are not strong in a local perspective like we are here, but we are not that much weaker there than in

Östergötland.”

- Christer Lundin

Whether locally produced is something that is produced in Sweden or in a specific area the participants have different opinions. The main part of the participants separates the-se two things. Bigger companies like Arla that operates all over the country is not per-ceived as a local producer by one participant.

“But if you have two milk packages, one from Arla and one from… Danske Mjölk, something like that. What would be locally produced? Would any one of those be locally

produced?”

- Johan O, 51

I think… It’s a good question. One is Swedish produced, but I wouldn’t call it locally produced because it is to far away. Even if the milk comes from Småland.”

- Alexander, 21

Another problem with locally produced seems to be that consumers is not aware of which brands that are locally produced. Boxholm Mejeri is not recognized as a local producer by their consumers. The fact that consumers are not aware of which products that is produced in Sweden or in the local area is problematic.

“Consumers don’t associate our brand to the fact that we use milk from local farms, that is not recognized.”

- Christer Lundin

“But I consider the term locally produced as from here around. But I was very disap-

pointed when I found out that Wernerssons Ost was not produced in Sweden.”

- Tinno, 48

37

6.4 Is country of origin (Sweden) more important than locally produced for consumers in Jönköping?

Table 6.4.1 shows statistics from the conjoint analysis where the participants had to choose between locally produced, Swedish produced, organic produced and imported household cheese. The taste and the price are equal for all alternatives. From the mean, one can read that locally produced is most desirable and Swedish produced (COO) comes on a second place, while imported cheese is least preferable. The table also shows that no participant valued locally produced less than third place. Table 6.4.2 shows statistics over the first choices from the conjoint analysis on the question where all alternatives had same price and taste. Even if Swedish produced received less first choices than organic produced, it got a lower mean which indicates that it is more im-portant than organic in general.

Descriptive Statistics N Mini-

mum Maxi-mum

Mean Std. Deviation

Locally Produced 100 1 3 1,54 ,593 Swedish Produced 100 1 4 2,24 ,793 Organic 100 1 4 2,36 ,990 Imported 100 1 4 3,86 ,450 Valid N (listwise) 100

Table 6.4.1. Statistics from the conjoint analysis

Table 6.4.2. Statistics over the first choices from the conjoint analysis when all alterna-tives had same price and taste.

51%  

22%  

26%  

1%  

Locally  Produced  vs.  Other  Alterna5ves  

Locally  Produced  

Swedish  Produced  

Organic  

Imported  

38

When locally produced household cheese is compared to Swedish produced household cheese at the same price and same taste in the conjoint analysis, the result was that lo-cally produced is more preferable and important to the main part of the participants.

During different and reality-based conditions, i.e. locally produced costs 129/kg and Swedish produced 99/kg, the Swedish produced alternative was preferable.

Regarding the question about locally produced or country of origin was most prefered, Lundin indicate that it would be more preferable for them to be perceived as a Swedish produced rather than local producer. Furthermore, he suggest that country of origin is important for hard cheese, while locally produced is more important for groceries. Lundin also describes that it is a problem to communicate “locally produced” as an ex-panding company during the interview, therefore the importance of country-of-origin is higher for Boxholm Mejeri and similiar companies. Even if country-of-origin seems to be most important for them, Lundin emphasize that they will use “local” on their pack-aging in the future, and also focus on their tradition and handcraft.

“We talked about it as late as this morning, origin gets more important and it will be clearer, to be a clear Swedish alternative could be good enough instead of just a small

area.”

“So that a product is produced in Sweden is more important than locally produced? Yes… Certainly hard cheese.”

- Christer Lundin

39

7 Analysis The analysis part will present the answers in comparison to the theoretical frameowork of the study.

7.1 Demographics The demographic variables such as income does not automatically imply that a consum-er is more willing to pay a premium price in order to get locally produced household cheese. Today, more than earlier, people priority different and have different interests. However, the conjoint analysis showed a tendency of that the more a person earn, the more is the person willing to pay per kilo for household cheese. This give an indication that consumers with high annual income are willing to pay more for locally produced household cheese than people with a lower annual income, which goes hand in hand with the statement of Jekanowski et al. (2000). Furthermore, it also concerns many participants that have higher education. One can read that it is a clear link between education and a higher annual income and those seg-ments were willing to pay more than the other ones for household cheese. Moreover, this also aligns with Brooker et al.’s (1987) statement. From the conjoint analysis it can also be seen that there are no gender that are willing to pay more for household cheese than others. The statistic is well disseminated and gives no indication that gender impacts on a person’s willingness to pay more for household cheese. Moreover, the fact that more women than men tend to choose the locally pro-duced alternative when faced with different options conflicts with Darby et al.’s (2008) study, which suggested that men were more willing to buy locally produced products. This gives an indication that women on the market of Jönköping prefer locally produced household cheese more than men. Antonides and Van Raij’s theory (1996) about differ-ences in the purchasing behavior between women and men aligns with the empirical findings of this study. There are differences in their purchasing behavior on the market of Jönköping, and one can tell for sure that the genders tend to priority differently, which could due to different interests and priorities. The main part of the participants were willing to pay between 80-100 :-/kg for house-hold cheese. This price segment could be seen as the maximum price for the main part of the participants, i.e. how much household cheese is valued in their mind, which de-termines how much they are willing to pay for it (Breider, 2005). This can be problem-atic for locally produced alternatives since they tend be more expensive than the given maximum price (Gustafsson, Rokotova, 2012). Since locally produced is associated to different motivators it could be other demo-graphic variables that also are important in the question of who buys locally produced household cheese. Environmental friendly mentality can be such a factor, according to

40

Lundin. That belief is also supported by Darby et al.’s study (2008) that mentioned that environmentally conscious people tend to pay more for locally produced products. One can clearly see that the age plays a role on the consumer in the moment of pur-chase, Alexander, 21 does not really care about the taste, for him the price is crucial. While Tinno, 48 prefer the one with the best taste. Price is highly considered among young people, and this value-factor seems to change with the age. This accords to the result from the conjoint analysis, where a clear relation can be drawn between age and the price willing to pay for cheese. This assumption corresponds to Kotler et al.’s (2008), and Brooker et al.’s (1987) theory about changing purchasing behavior through a person’s life. Age has a positive impact on how much consumers are willing to pay for household cheese.

7.2 What does consumers associate to locally produced, and what is important in the purchase decision?

7.2.1 Price

One can see that price is a critical factor, and even though locally produced is preferred; it is not preferred at any price. The consumers on the market of Jönköping certainly have a maximum price for household cheese, as Breider (2005) states. The respondents of the focus group were ready to pay 20 crowns extra in order to get locally produced household cheese, and that indicates that the price determinations are very sensitive and actually conclusive. Furthermore, the maximum price for locally produced showed to be 20 crowns/kg more than an alternative that is not locally produced. Since the main part of the participants were willing to pay between 60-80 or 80-100 :-/kg for household cheese, this study can determine that most participants will pay a maximum price of 100-120 :-/kg for a locally produced household cheese. Companies are well aware of this since Lundin specified that consumers did not intend-ed to purchase their product if the price difference was 30 % higher than the average price. However, it should be enlightened that most participants is speaking in terms of household cheese. If they were going to buy cheese for a special occasion, they were willing to pay more to get a better cheese and one can tell that they value locally pro-duced. “Oh my god… If we talk about price per kilo, a cheese that has a price per kilo of 75:-

and one that has a price per kilo of 120:-, then I take the one that cost 75:-, then the dif-ference is to big. If the difference is 10, 20:-, then it is okey.”

“The price is the No. 1 priority” From the conjoint analysis it could be seen that locally produced cheese, as a more ex-pensive and reality-based choice, ends up on a third place behind cheaper Swedish pro-duced cheese. Moreover, this emphasizes the importance and sensitivity of the price.

41

Valuing locally produced cheese is very hard due to the price sensitivity. One can clear-ly read that it is preferred in comparison to imported cheese but the price is in most cas-es very critical and determines which household cheese to buy. The preference of local-ly produced cheese could also be a type of COO-effect due to that locally produced could be considered as COO in relation to imported alternatives. This study can conclude that locally produced is preferred, but not at any price. Though, participants were asked to choose between an imported cheese for 89:-/kg and an ex-pensive locally produced cheese at 129:-/kg, the result showed that most consumers still would have picked the locally produced cheese over the imported alternative. So, con-sumers rather pay 40:- more to get the locally produced cheese than imported cheese. Even if the price difference is clearly bigger than the 20 :-/kg that was suggested in the focus group, people still choose the locally produced product. This can be due to that the locally produced alternative satisfies the consumers self-esteem more than the im-ported alternative (Maslow, 1970). The conjoint analysis also showed that locally pro-duced is higher valued than Swedish produced, organic and imported cheese if the price and the taste is equal.

The local feeling of the locally produced household cheese does also send some mes-sage of exclusivity, and one can state that it could be to fulfill its own self-esteem, which the theory of Maslow states.

“It feels a bit exclusively to buy this locally produced. Because it is often more expen-sive”

7.2.2 Quality

Furthermore, locally produced household cheese is certainly associated to high quality in a high extent. That aligns with the statement of Govindasamy et al. (1997) that con-sumers seem to associate locally produced products with high quality (taste, freshness health). So, a local producer has stricter requirements to deliver products with high quality in order to satisfy the consumers than for example a foreign producer has. From the focus group is it also found that a high price was directly linked to a high ex-tent of quality. This link does also intend that consumers probably set higher demands on a locally produced cheese due to the high price, and expects to get added value in re-turn. The perception regarding quality is definitely impacted by the new waves of consumer-ism (Gabriel & Lang, 1995). It could also be that these new waves of consumerism af-fect the perception of the quality. The closer the production is to the home location of the consumers, the higher quality is expected and that could be due to the short transport of the products (environmental friendly) and tradition.

42

7.2.3 Motivators

If the consumer is aware of where the product comes from, or have some form of rela-tion to that place, they are certainly more willing to pay a higher price. It can be con-cluded that the brand awareness factor is essential because both brand recall and brand recognition is identified in the focus group as important elements. Furthermore, when the consumer has personal knowledge about the province they definitely value the high-er.

“It’s like a farmer market; even if their product is a lot more expensive I can but the cheese there because I want them to sustain their business.”

However, locally produced cheese is not a top priority in comparison to other aspects. Of course one can read that if the price and the taste are equal, the consumer wants to buy locally produced cheese. However, the fact is that the price is often higher and that means that locally produced is seen as a bonus. The most essential factors for consum-ers in Jönköping when buying household cheese are brand awareness and price.

“The taste primarily, that is what I think of first. It should be a well-aged cheese. Sec-ondary, the price is something I take in consideration. Those two are the main factors I

think is important”

“I have my process when I am in the store, the price is the No. 1 priority” The most important factor and motivation to buy locally produced household cheese ac-cording to the empirical findings are to support the local businesses. The supermarkets that sells most of Boxholm Mejeri:s cheese are located within 4 miles from Boxholm. The brand awareness is most likely highest in these areas and their traditional packaging is known best in the closeness of the company, which was a high motivator in the mo-ment of purchase. This result resembles what Darby et al.’s (2008) and Adams and Salois (2010) studies found, that supporting the local business is the most important mo-tivator to buy locally produced products. Furthermore, that aligns with the result from the conjoint analysis that shows that support for the local business is important, since Boxholm Mejeri is strongest within its local area. This goes along with Gabriel and Lang’s (1995) theory about a new way of consumerism, where ethical factors are get-ting more important. In relation to this one can see that consumers were more willing to pay a higher price for locally produced in these areas. Therefore it is confirmed that there is a certain link between personal knowledge and willingness to pay a higher price, i.e. valuing it higher. From the empirical findings one can confirm that locally produced was linked to a high-er price, which was suggested by Gustavsson and Rokotova (2008).

43

The conjoint analysis also showed that personal knowledge is the second most im-portant factor when buying locally produced cheese. So, consumers are most likely will-ing to pay more in order to get locally produced househould cheese if a bond or link to the producer exist. That corresponds to the theory of Jekanowski et al. (2000). Two further motivations was small-scale business and local patriotism and one can tell that consumers tend to prefer an incorporate image, which they can relate to. So, one can tell that the motivators are majorly not to fulfill hunger, it is rather about fulfilling psychological needs such as self-esteem or social needs that Maslow suggests (1970). The complexity of the term locally produced is once again confirmed and clearly it can be seen that one has to differ between mixed products (cheese) and not-mixed products (meat and groceries.). For consumers, locally produced is most important for groceries and meat. When it comes to cheese, “locally produced” is hard to limit since cheese consists of several ingredients. “I think that there are differences between mixed products, as cheese and groceries and meat. I believe that there is a bigger value to be locally produced if you sell groceries and meat, especially if you sell your products on markets etc., then I believe it is more

important.”

7.2.4 Purchase decision

Locally produced tends to be sidelined by the majority of the consumers in Jönköping in the purchase decision. The conjoint analysis and the focus group indicated that brand awareness and price are more important and influencing than locally produced when standing in front of the shelves. Due to the lack of engagement from consumers when buying household cheese, the decision is taken fast and in the store. Companies are aware of this (McMahon, 1980) and put a lot of effort to create recognition rather than stating that they are locally produced. This aligns with Hoyer and Brown’s (1990) theo-ry about low involvement products, that the most important thing is that the consumer recognize the product.

“I often take a very fast decision, I know what I want before and just pick that when I arrive to the store, at least regarding cheese”

However, locally produced is a factor that might increase the engagement at consumers since it concerns good husbandry, less environmental impact and support for local busi-nesses is raised (Gustafsson, Rokotova, 2012). Due to that the increased engagement, one can argue that the low involvement factor might decline (Assael, 1998). As mentioned, the most influencing factor in the moment of purchase is brand aware-ness, and that depends on recent experiences and has for sure a connection to a habitual

44

type of buying since it is a low involvement product (Bogart, 1986). Since it is a fast process for consumers to buy household cheese, one rather takes a product that is rec-ognized than spending time looking for other alternatives in the store. The secondly most important factor was the price, and it could depend on that the brands that are well known also have a low price. Locally produced ended up on the third place of the most important factors in the moment of purchase, which is not a surprise since the consum-ers make a quick decision and it shows that locally produced are not beyond the first factors to consider. If a product was clearly stated as locally produced it may have a bigger impact on consumer. The environmental factors seem to be important, but when the consumers are in the store shopping it is not what comes on the consumers mind. So, the environmental fac-tors seem not to be a big deal for the consumers in the moment of purchase, especially since household cheese is a low involvement product. The study also considered the importance of shelf spot and the packaging, those two did not seemed to be very important for the consumers in the moment of purchase when asking them. However, one cannot ignore those factors since they probably are an im-portant underlying factor that affects the consumers’ underlying. That because the par-ticipants did say that the final decision of cheese was made in the store, and regarding low involvement products it is one of the most affecting factors (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Since brand awareness was important and the purchase decision was made quickly, a god shelve spot can be important for locally produced products, so that con-sumers pay attention to them in the store. Regarding trends, participants from the focus group indicated that they were responsive to it, but they did not specify it to locally produced. Furthermore, this result does not ac-cord to Adams and Adams (2011) study made in U.S., where locally produced was seen as a big trend. This may be because locally produced have not got that much of attention in Sweden as in the U.S. One participant in the focus group also added that even if me-dia influenced him, it did not concerned buying cheese, rather meat products.

7.3 What are the limitations in terms of geography? Many respondents in the focus group lives in Småland, and regarding the question how to delimit the term the answer was within that province, and some added Västergötland as well (provinces close to each other). However, the delimitation of locally produced is within the province that you live in or a province that you have a personal connection or belonging too. On the question if Boxholm Mejeri was a locally produced alternative for the respondents, almost everyone concluded that it was not. The respondents ex-plained that they did not have any connection to Boxholm and that it is a great psychic distance to Östergötland for people living in Småland. However, the respondents that

45

came from Västergötland perceived Småland as local, which might depend on the short physical and psychic distance between the provinces.

“Yeah, but it is probably Småland if we shall think locally.” “Västergötland and Småland.”

It was important that the participants could relate to the place that the product was pro-duced in. However, it is clearly stated that a Swedish (national) produced household cheese is not seen as local and it emphasizes the analyze that there needs to be a local connection between the consumer and the producer to be perceived as local. Many organizations have tried to delimit the term in form of miles and kilometers, but according to the empirical findings one can read that it is not about a specific length in terms of miles or kilometers, but rather about having a relation or belonging to the cer-tain area where the product is produced. So, it could be profitable for a local producer to take advantage of the power of the packaging. The packaging of the household cheese could use its visual elements to enhance the local image, such as graphics and colors re-lated to the specific region (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Thus, it gets more problematic when expanding its business. However, consumers today are in general not aware of which household cheese brands that are local producers, and that is a problem for those brands that actually are produc-ing locally. Companies need to be better at communicating to their consumers and po-tential consumers. When it came up that another cheese company with a Swedish name produced their cheese abroad, many of the respondents in the focus group where chocked and felt fooled. This trend of being perceived as local becomes more and more important due to the increased attention and the increased amount of imported products.

7.4 Is country of origin (Sweden) more important than locally pro-duced for consumers in Jönköping?

Regarding country of origin, the empirical findings of the study shows that consumers’ value locally produced household cheese higher than Swedish (nationally) produced household cheese when price and taste is equal. The consumers’ perception regarding COO is that they perceive Swedish products as qualitative and there is certainly a COO-effect. Consumers in Sweden mainly prefers Swedish produced products and therefore, they have experienced it in a good manner and value Swedish produced household cheese in that way too (Ahmed et al., 2004). Other motivators to purchase Swedish or locally produced household cheese are certainly shorter transport ranges and higher food value. According to the mean from the conjoint analysis, COO-cheese is higher valued than organic cheese that also indicated the big demand of Swedish produced cheese. It could

46

also be the fact that the locality in forms of local names and signs could strength the perception of being a Swedish alternative. However, when there is a price difference by 30:-/kg (When locally produced costs 129:- and Swedish produced cost 99:-) most consumers chooses the Swedish produced cheese, rather than the locally produced alternative. Again, it matches the participants maximum price between 60-100:-/kg. Since the locally produced alternative was more expensive than 20:-, in relation to the Swedish alternative, which was the amount that consumers were willing to pay to get a locally produced household cheese most partici-pants choose the Swedish alternative. Furthermore, the country of origin effect is mainly useful for companies working on a national wide level and the main reason is that consumers in Sweden value Swedish products higher than foreign products due to the perception of Sweden. From the focus group and the conjoint analysis one can read that independently of the knowledge or experience of consumers, they generally prefer Swedish cheese rather than imported cheese and therefore one can tell that the COO-effect is essential. Which also is confirmed by Ahmeds et al.’s (2004) statement.

“We talked about it as late as this morning, origin gets more important and it will be clearer, to be a clear Swedish alternative could be good enough instead of just a small

area.” Locally produced, on the other hand, are hard to deal with if the company is working on a big area. However, based on the empirical findings one could still argue that locality, tradition and origin are important factors to consumers since consumers tends to relate to them.

47

8 Conclusions The conclusion part will present the conclusions based on the problem, empirical find-ings and the analysis.

There was a problem regarding the definition of the term locally produced in the mind-set of the consumers. Even though Sweden is a smaller country than U.S., one can clear-ly state the conclusion that consumers in Jönköping generally delimit the term to “pro-duced within the province”, or a place outside of the province that the consumer has a personal connection to. Furthermore, locally produced should be defined as a product that is produced within the province. This definition should be better communicated to clarify the term in the mindset of the consumers.

Locally produced cheese is associated with high quality and a high price. It is mainly the price that put high requirements on the quality. Therefore, one can conclude that lo-cally produced is important, but not at any price. Consumers associate the term locally produced to food that is produced in a close geographic area, which is within the prov-ince.

The study can conclude that the two main motivators to buy locally produced household cheese is to support the local businesses and having personal knowledge of the produc-er. It can also be concluded, based on empirical findings, that a general consumer that selects between four different types of cheese with equally price selects the one that are locally produced.

Moreover, when the price for the locally produced cheese were increased, and the others decreased, which is the real scenario, the study can conclude that the general consumer is very price sensitive and tend to choose the Swedish produced or organic household cheese instead. The study can conclude that there is a link between higher income and higher education, and those segments do also tend to spend more money per kilo for cheese.

Even though locally produced is valued highest when put against Swedish, organic and imported produced; it is not as influencing as brand awareness and price in the moment of purchase. So, to conclude the valuation of locally produced cheese one could simply draw the conclusion that in the moment of purchase, brand awareness and price valued higher than locally produced.

Furthermore, the study can conclude that locally produced cheese is, on equally terms, more preferable than Swedish (COO) produced household cheese. However, the conclu-sion gets edited since the reality-based prices differs within the maximum price and the consequence is that consumers primarily choose Swedish produced cheese, rather than locally produced cheese. So, it can be concluded that locally produced means a lot to consumers in terms of small-scale and tradition.

48

Whether how companies could use locally produced in their marketing plan, the conclu-sion is based on the empirical findings, and one could tell that it is a way of attracting consumers. Since the participants in the focus group stated that they did not spend much time on the purchase decision, but rather choose a cheese they have experienced or rec-ognizes, companies should try to raise the awareness of their locality in the consumers’ mindset. The low involvement factor also creates the conclusion that a cheese company shall express the locality clearly on the packaging. It is also advantageous to state a spe-cific farm name on the package to create a personal connection to the consumer; it be-comes more tempting and interesting.

49

9 Discussion The discussion part presents the authors own thoughts of the findings, suggestion on fu-ture researches and acknowledgements.

The issue about locally produced food has got a lot of attention from researchers in the U.S. However, there is lack of research about the subject on the Swedish market. There-fore, the authors found the topic interesting and it was justified to find out how consum-ers of Jönköping perceived the terms in form of geographic, and how they valued it in comparison to other factors, mainly country of origin and brand awareness.

Since three different methods were used in order to gather as much data as possible, the authors find that enough data is collected to draw credible analysis and conclusions. The study has come up with many interesting conclusions that were uncertain on the Swe-dish market and the market of Jönköping earlier. Since consumers make their choice of which cheese to buy in front of the shelves’, i.e. in the moment of purchase the study can point out that locally produced cheese is sidelined by other factors, mainly brand awareness. Furthermore, the researchers find that it is interesting that locally produced comes up after Swedish produced (COO) when setting reality-based prices.

Future research could put more focus on which consumer segments that tends to value locally produced higher than brand awareness for example. In mind of time and re-sources this study was not able to find out more detailed personal information about the respondents, which makes it hard to draw more detailed conclusions about consumer segments.

The result got some restraints and since the conjoint analysis has a margin of error on 10 %, a margin error on 5 % or 1 % had off course been more credible and preferable. However, since a lot of time have been put on the semi-structured interview and the fo-cus group the researchers feel that interesting and credible conclusions have been drawn. Moreover, the focus group was not represented by a person above the age of 50 years old, which is a weakness since the study might have missed some qualitative data from an older persons perspective. The fact that alternative questions were used in the conjoint analysis means that the survey respondents were not able to give own sugges-tions.

What should be remembered after reading this study is that the definition of locally pro-duced only is based on consumers of Jönköpings, and therefore, the definition is best suited for the area and market of Jönköping. The researchers cannot guarantee that the conclusions are suitable in other cities in Sweden.

List of references

50

List of references Aaker, D. (1996) Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets. California Managament Review, 38 (3). Adams, D., & Adams, A. (2011) Deplacing local at the farmers market: Consumer conception of local foods. Journal of rural social sciences, 74-100. Adams, D. C., & Salois, M.J. (2010). Local versus organic: A turn in consumer preferences and willingess-to-pay. Renewable agriculture and food systems, 25 (4), 331-341.

Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X., Fatt, C.K., Teng, H.S., & Boon, L.C. (2004). Does country of origin matters for low-involvement products? Interntional marketing review, Vol. 21(1), 102-120.

Antonides, G., & van Raaij, F. (1998). Consumer Behaviour, A European Perspective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Assael, H. (1998). Consumer behavior and marketing action (6th ed). Cincinatti, Ohio: South-Western College Pub.

Bogart, L. (1986). Strategy in Advertising: Matching Me- dia and Messages of Markets and Motivations, Lincoln, IL: NTC Business.

Bondens egen marknad (n.d.). Bondens idé. Retrieved Februari 27, 2014 from address http://www.bondensegen.com/bondens_ide.htm

Boxholms Ost. (n.d.). Närproducerad Ost sedan 1890. Retrieved March 5, 2014 from address http://www.boxholmsost.se

Breider, C. (2005). Estimation of willingness-to-pay: Theory, Measurement, Applica-tion. Frankfurt: Deutscher Universitats-Verlag

Brooker, J.R., Eastwood, D.B., & Orr, R.H. (1987). Consumers' perceptions of locally grown produce at retail outlets. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 18(1), 99-107.

Brown, C. (2003). Consumers’ preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri. American Journal of Alterntive Argiculture, 18(4). 213-224.

Byström, O. (2013, June 10). Ökad ostimport oroar svenska bönder. Skånskan. Retrieved Mars 29, 2014, from address http://www.skanskan.se/article/20130610/PALANDET/130619967/-/okad-ostimport-oroar-svenska-bonder Dalen, M. (2007). Intervju som metod (1st ed). Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB.

List of references

51

Darby, K., Batte, M., Ernst, S., & Roe, B. (2008). Decomposing Local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 90(2), 476-486. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2003). Local food - a snapshot of the sector. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Driscoll, D., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D. (2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How To and Why Not. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), 18-28.

Gabriel, Y., Lang, T. (1995). The Unmanageable Consumer: Conteporary Consumption and Its Fragmentation. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Gallons, J., Toensmeyer, U.C., Bacon, J.R., & German, C.L. 1997. An analysis of con-sumer characteristics concerning direct marketing of fresh produce in Delaware: a case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28(1), 98–106.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Ruthers – The State University. New Jersey. NJ.

Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., & Liptak, C. (1997). Quality of Agricultural Produce: Con-sumer Preferences and Perceptions. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Re-port P-02137-1-97. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Yersey.

Green, P., Krieger, A., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflection and prospects. Interfaces, 31(3), 56-73.

Grossman, R., & Wizenblit, J. (1999). What we know about consumers colour choices. Journal of Marketing Practice, 5(3), 78-88

Guptill, A., & Wilkins, J. L. (2002). Buying into the food system: trends in food retailing in the us and implications for local foods. Agriculture and Human Values, 19, 39-51.

Gustafsson, N., & Rokotova, Y. (2012). HUI Research: Lokalproducerade livsmedel. Konsumentundersökning, våren 2012. Retrieved Februari 18, 2014 from address http://norrmejeriernyheter.se/files/2013/03/HUI-2012.pdf). Halkier, B., & Torhell, S. (2010). Fokusgrupper: Forskningsmetodik (1 Uppl). Malmö: Liber AB

Han, C.M. (1989). Country image: halo or summary construct? Journal of marketing research, Vol.24, 222-229.

List of references

52

Hansen, T. (2005). Understanding consumer perception of food quality: The cases of shrimps and cheese. Vol. 107(7), 500-525

Hingley, M., Boone, J., & Haley, S. (2010) Local Food Marketing as a Development Opportunity for Small UK Agri-Food Businesses. International Journal of Food System Dynamics, Vol. 3, 194-203.

Hinrichs, C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization Journal of ru-ral studies, 19(1), 33-45.

Hove, S., & Anda, B. (2005). Experience from conducting Semi-structured interviews in Empirical Software Engineering Research. Software metrics, 10-23..

Hoyer, W., & Brown, S. (1990). Effects of Brand Awareness on choice for a Common, Repeate Purchase-Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17.

Hylander, I. (2001). Fokusgrupper som kvalitativ datainsamlingsmetod: Forksing om grupper och sociala system. Department of Education and Psychology, Linköping University.

Jekaniowski, M., Williams, D., II, & Shiek, W. (2000). Consumer’s willingness to purchase locally produced agricultral products: An analysis of an Indiana survey. Agricultural and Resources Economics Review, 29, 43-53.

Kalish, S., & Nelson, R (1991). A Comparison of Ranking, Rating and Reservation Price Measurement in Conjoint Analysis. Marketing Letters, 2(4), 327-335.

Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Kight, K. (n.d.). Fokusgrupper, en kvalitativ datainsamlingsmetod. Retrieved May 1, from address http://www.projektcarpe.se/dokument/kompetensombud/Fokusgrupp.pdf

Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V., & Saunders, J. (2008). Principles of Marketing (5th ed). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund. (n.d.). Närproducerat. Retrieved Februari 27, 2014, from address http://www.lrf.se/Mat/Narproducerat/

Lantz, G., & Loeb, S. (1996). Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism: An analysis of Ca-nadian and American preferences using social identity theory. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, 374-378.

Livsmedelssverige. (2008). De lokala matproducenterna och dagligvaruhandeln: Kartläggning - hinder och möjligheter - förslag. Retrieved Februari 27, 2014 from address http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11030/7/bjorklund_h_etal_140310.pdf

List of references

53

Lizerman, M., van Til, J., & Bridges, J. (2012). A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation, 5(1), 45-56. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2 ed). New York: Haprer and Row. P, 88-106.

McMahon, H. (1980), "TV Loses the 'Name Game' but Wins Big in Personality," Ad-vertising Age (December 1). P. 54.

Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1990). The focused interview. A manual of problems and procedures (2nd ed). New York: The free press.

Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series. (2nd ed). Thousans Oaks: Sage

Nayga, R. M., Govindasamy, R., Wall, T. C., & Thatch, D. W. (1995). Characterstics of farmer-to-consumer direct market customer in New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station P-02136-3-95, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University Cooperative Extension, New Brunswick, NJ.

Okeckuku, C. (1994). The importance of product country of origin: A conjoint analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany and The Netherlands. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28(4), 5-19.

Pandit, N. (1996). The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of the Grounded Theory Method. The qualitativ report, Vol 2. Pecotich, A., & Ward, S. (2007). Global branding, country of origin and expertise: An experimental evaluation. International Marketing Review, Vol.24(39), 271-296. Polkinghorne, D.E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Internatinal Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 12-28. Prendergast, P., & Pitt, L. (1996). Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: Are there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics man-agement, 26 (6), 60-72. Rossiter, J., & Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw – Hill Book.

List of references

54

Sawtooth Sofware. (n.d.). Conjoint/Choice Analysis. Retrieved April 14, from address http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/products/solutions/needs-based-segmentation/189-products/solutions/571-conjoint-choice-analysis Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packing and purchased decisions: An explanatory study on the impact of the involvement and time pressure. British Food Journal, 106(8), 607-628. Stanford Transportation Group. (n.d.). Methodologies – Conjoint analysis. Retrieved March 5, 2014 from address http://www.stgsf.com/methodologies_conjointanalysis.php Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and technique (3rd ed). London: Sage publications. (A) Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Grounded Theory research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteri. Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13(1). (B) StudyMode.com (2010, October). Low & High Involvement Products. Retrieved April 30, from address http://www.studymode.com/essays/Low-High-Involvement-Products-448910.html Surveymonkey (n.d.). Urvalsstorlek för enkät: Hur många personer måste jag skicka den till? Retrieved May 6, 2014 from address https://sv.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size/ Svenska Dagbladet (2013, Februari 25). IKEA stoppar köttbullar I Sverige. Retrieved April 3, from address http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/hastkott-i-ikeas-kottbullar_7943334.svd Sveriges Konsumenter. (n.d.). Närproducerat. Retrieved 3 February, 2014 from address http://www.sverigeskonsumenter.se/mat/fakta-/narproducerat/ Sveriges radio (2013). Svårt att veta vad som är svenskt i butiken. Retrieved March 5, 2014 from address http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=99&artikel=5712795 Söndergaard, D. (2001). Destabiliserende diskursanalyse: veje ind I poststrukturalistisk inspirert empirisk forsking. Oslo, Gy TechWise Research. (n.d.). Types of studies: Conjoint research. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from address http://techwise-research.com/types-of-studies/conjoint-research

List of references

55

Toler, S., Briggeman, B. C., Lusk, J. L., & Adams, D. C. (2009). Fairness, Farmer mar-kets and local production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 1272-1278. Tropp, D. (2008). The growing role of local food markets: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90 (5), 1310-1311. Wall, M., Liefel, J., & Heslop, L.A. (1991). Impact of country-of-origin cues on con-sumer judgment in multi-cue situations: A Covariance Analysis. Journal of the Acade-my of Marketing Science. Vol. 19(2), 105-113. Wells, W., & Prensky, D. (1996), Consumer Behaviour. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY Wreting-Clarin, A. (2010). Hållbar konsumtion av jordbruksvaror: vad får du som konsument när du köper närproducerat? Retrieved januari 24, 2014 from address http://www2.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/Pdf_rapporter/ra10_19.pdf Wyner, G. (1992). Uses and limitations of Conjoint Analysis – Part 1. Journal of marketing, 216-218.

Appendix

56

10 Appendix

10.1 Semi-structured interview with Christer Lundin The interview with Christer Lundin, CEO of Boxholm Mejeri, took place 2014-03-31. The interview took 35 minutes and was perform in Boxholm Mejeri’s conference room.

10.1.1 Interview guide

Questions for the interview with Christer Lundin.

1. How is your marketing plan designed? 2. How do Boxholms Mejeri differentiate from its competitors? 3. What characterize your cheese? 4. How do you perceive locally produced as term? How do you think consumers

perceives it? Does it differ? 5. Locally produced is a very ambiguous term, what do you believe is the reason to

this? 6. What does locally produced mean to you? Why have you delimit it to a five

miles radius? 7. Do you use the term locally produced in your marketing or branding?

If you do: why is it important? If you do not: why is it not important?

8. What do you think consumers associate to locally produced? 9. Studies shows that people in USA associate locally produced to low price and

high quality while people in Sweden seems to associate the term to more ethical issues such as supporting the local businesses and responsible production but also a premium price. What is your opinion of this, do you agree? Why do you think that it is so?

10. How did you decide which price your cheese should be sold for? Currently your cheese is more expensive than the average.

11. Which variable do you think is important for consumers when they buying cheese?

12. Do you believe that locally produced is more important for certain target groups? In case of that you do, which are this target group? How?

10.2 Focus group The focus group was performed 2014-04-09. It took place in a group room at JIBS and lasted for 40 minutes. Following table shows the demographic of the members that par-ticipated in the focus group.

Appendix

57

Table 10.2.1. Demographics over the participants of the focus group.

10.2.1 Focus group guide

1. Introduction: explain what the aim with the focus group is and the purpose with

the research. 2. When you go shopping for cheese, which factors do you value in front of the

shelves’? What make you choose which cheese to buy? 3. Who does the grocery shopping in the household? 4. When you purchase cheese, what do you think of the supplement that the stores

have? Sales of imported cheese has increased last years, do you buy more Swe-dish produced than imported?

5. How much time and effort is put on the purchase decision in the store? 6. Which of these elements are most important when buying household cheese?

n Price n Place on shelve n Brand awareness n COO n Packaging

7. How important is locally produced in comparison to other factors? Such as

price, brand awareness, COO, etc.… 8. Locally produced food has become more and more accurate today than earlier

and gets more attention every day. What do you think when hearing the phrase locally produced? How do you interpret the term? What is the first thing you as-sociate it with? Is it positive?

n Geographical speaking? n Ethical? n Which of these are most important for locally produced?

Name Age Occupation Civil status

Alexander 21 Studying In a relationship

Johan K 25 Working Single

Tinno 48 Working Married

Lena 48 Working Married

Johan O 50 Working Married

Appendix

58

n Is self-esteem important when buying locally produced?

9. Does trends influence you? 10. Do you perceive Boxholms Mejeri as locally produced as a consumer from Jön-

köping? Boxholms is a small community close to Mjölby, ca. eleven miles from Jönköping.

11. What is most important, Swedish produced or locally produced? 12. Locally produced is generally more expensive than other products, do you think

that it is justified? 13. In comparison to imported cheese, how much more would you be willing to pay

for a locally produced cheese?

Appendix

59

10.3 Codes from the semi-structured interview and focus group

Open codes Axial codes Selective codes

Price

Purchase decision

Important factors

Trend

Quality

The cheese supplement

Locally produced – mindset

Ethical

Supporting local busi-ness

What does consumers associate to locally produced, and what is important in the purchase decision?

Factors influencing purchase decision

Geographic

What are the limitations in terms of geography?

Locally produced vs. other factors

Country of origin

Is country of origin (Sweden) more important than locally produced for consumers in Jönköping?

Table 10.3.1. The codes that was developed through grounded theory and based on the data from the focus group amd semi-structured interview

Appendix

60

10.4 Conjoint analysis

10.4.1 Design of the conjoint analysis Put a cross in for the right alternative in the following section:

1. Gender A) Woman ____ B) Man ____

2. Age A) Between 18-20 ____ B) Between 20-25 ____ C) Between 26-35 ____ D) Between 36-45 ____ E) Between 46-55 ____ F) 56 or older ____

3. Do you have post-secondary education? Yes ____ No ____ Ongoing ____

4. Annual income before taxes (Swedish crowns) A) 120 000 crowns or less ____ B) Between 120 000 & 160 000 crowns ____ C) Between 160 000 & 240 000 crowns ____ D) Between 240 000 & 350 000 crowns ____ E) Between 350 000 & 500 000 crowns ____ F) Between 500 000 & 800 000 crowns ____ G) 800 000 crowns or more ____

5. How much are you willing to pay for household cheese? (Per kilo) A) 60 crowns or less ____ B) Between 60-80 crowns ____ C) Between 80-100 crowns ____ D) Between 100-130 crowns ____ E) 130 crowns or more ____

In the following part locally produced cheesed will be discussed. With locally produced we aims at products that are produced in the region of Jönköping or Småland.

Grade following choices between 1-4, where 1 is your primary choice and 4 is the least preferable choice.

Appendix

61

Appendix

62

10.4.2 Age statistics of the participants in the conjoint analysis

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

Between 18-20 years old 6 6,0 6,0 6,0 Between 20-25 29 29,0 29,0 35,0 Between 26-35 13 13,0 13,0 48,0 Between 36-45 15 15,0 15,0 63,0 Between 46-55 20 20,0 20,0 83,0 56 years or older 17 17,0 17,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.2.1. Age statistics of the participants in the conjoint analysis.

10.4.3 Diagrams from the conjoint analysis

Table 10.4.3.1. Incomes in relation to how much consumers are willing to pay for cheese. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-

cent

Valid

60 kr or less 11 11,0 11,0 Valid Between 60-80 kr 38 38,0 38,0 Between 80-100 kr 34 34,0 34,0 Between 100-130 kr 12 12,0 12,0 130 kr or more 5 5,0 5,0 Total 100 100,0 100,0

Table 10.4.3.2. Statistic about how much consumers in Jönköping are willing to pay for cheese.

Appendix

63

Table 10.4.3.3. Post-secondary education impact on how much consumers are willing to pay for cheese.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

60 kr or less 11 11,0 11,0 Valid Between 60-80 kr 38 38,0 38,0 Between 80-100 kr 34 34,0 34,0 Between 100-130 kr 12 12,0 12,0 130 kr or more 5 5,0 5,0 Total 100 100,0 100,0

Table 10.4.3.4. Statistic about how much consumers in Jönköping are willing to pay for cheese.

Table 10.4.3.5. How much locally produced influence consumers choice of cheese.

Locally Produced

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 23 23,0 23,0 23,0 2 25 25,0 25,0 48,0 3 33 33,0 33,0 81,0 4 13 13,0 13,0 94,0 5 6 6,0 6,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0

Appendix

64

Brand Awareness

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 41 41,0 41,0 41,0 2 34 34,0 34,0 75,0 3 22 22,0 22,0 97,0 4 2 2,0 2,0 99,0 5 1 1,0 1,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.3.6. How much brand awareness influence consumers in the purchase decision.

Price

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 34 34,0 34,0 34,0 2 35 35,0 35,0 69,0 3 25 25,0 25,0 94,0 4 3 3,0 3,0 97,0 5 3 3,0 3,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.3.7 How much price influence consumer’s choice of cheese.

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Locally Produced 100 1 3 1,54 ,593 Swedish Produced 100 1 4 2,24 ,793 Organic 100 1 4 2,36 ,990 Imported 100 1 4 3,86 ,450 Valid N (listwise) 100

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Locally Produced 129:-/kg 100 1 4 2,63 ,960 Swedish Produced 99:-/kg 100 1 4 1,75 ,783 Organic 109:-/kg 100 1 4 2,36 1,049 Imported 89:-/kg 100 1 4 3,26 1,107 Valid N (listwise) 100

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Good Tasting Locally Produced 129:-/kg 100 1 4 2,96 ,994 Better Tasting Swedish Produced 99:-/kg 100 1 4 1,78 ,883 Better Tasting Organic 109:-/kg 100 1 4 2,43 ,935 Best Tasting Imported 89:-/kg 100 1 4 2,83 1,248 Valid N (listwise) 100

Table 10.4.3.8. Summary of participant’s choices between different kinds of cheeses

Appendix

65

Supporting Local Business

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 37 37,0 37,0 37,0 2 19 19,0 19,0 56,0 3 29 29,0 29,0 85,0 4 15 15,0 15,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.3.9. How important supporting local business is for consumers when buying locally produced cheese

Personal Knowledge

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 24 24,0 24,0 24,0 2 20 20,0 20,0 44,0 3 19 19,0 19,0 63,0 4 37 37,0 37,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.3.10. How important personal knowledge is for consumers when buying locally pro-duced cheese.

Environmental Friendly

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 19 19,0 19,0 19,0 2 37 37,0 37,0 56,0 3 23 23,0 23,0 79,0 4 21 21,0 21,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.3.11. How important environmental factors are when buying locally produced cheese. Animal Keeping

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Per-cent

Valid

1 20 20,0 20,0 20,0 2 24 24,0 24,0 44,0 3 29 29,0 29,0 73,0 4 27 27,0 27,0 100,0

Total 100 100,0 100,0 Table 10.4.3.12. How important animal keeping is when buying locally produced cheese.

Appendix

66

Table 10.4.3.13. What consumers prefer between locally cheese and imported cheese when price and taste is the same for both of them.

Table 10.4.3.14. What consumers prefer of locally produced cheese and imported cheese when there is a price difference between them.

Appendix

67

Table 10.4.3.14. What consumers choose between locally produced cheese and Swedish pro-duced cheese.

Table 10.4.3.15. What consumers choose between locally produced cheese and Swedish pro-duced cheese when locally produced cost 30:- more.

Appendix

68

Gender * Locally Produced Crosstabulation Count Locally Produced Total

1 2 3

Gender Man 17 24 2 43 Woman 34 20 3 57

Total 51 44 5 100

Table 10.4.3.14. Women are overrepresented of consumers that choose locally produced as their number one during same price and taste