Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Retailer-Wholesaler Response to State-Sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Jersey Fresh

By Ramu Govindasamy, Aruna Pingali, John Italia and Daymon W. Thatch

Abstract

Jersey Fresh retailers and wholesalers feel that the logos are effective in increasing sales. Most feel that the popularity of the logo among the consumers is moderate. The results of this study indicate that the promotional aspect of the program was more popular among all the participant groups than the quality control aspect. The mail surveys indicated that a greater number of participants were aware of and were using the promotional logo than the quality grading logo. Only a fifth of the wholesalers who were aware of the quality-grading program were enrolled in the program. The results also indicated that participants who thought that consumer awareness of the program was high were more likely to be enrolled. This study also illustrates that most retailers and wholesalers participating in the program prefer the colorful Jersey Fresh Promotional Logo (Logo A in Appendix) and would like to have one common logo for both promotion and quality grading. Retailers who believed that consumers were highly aware of Jersey Fresh were found more likely to have been using the Jersey Fresh Logos. Retailers who used other logos to identify their fresh produce were found more likely to use Jersey Fresh Logos in the future. Willingness to use Jersey Fresh Logos in the future was found to be lower among retailers who sell more than 75 percent of their sales in retailing. Willingness to use the logos was also found to decrease with the age of retailers. Retailers with outlets in the urban areas of New Jersey and with retail outlets that were open for more than 8 months during the year were more likely to be use Jersey Fresh Logos. Farmers with more experience in retailing produce were more likely to use the logos. Wholesalers who used other logos, who advertised through signs and used word of mouth to identify their produce were more found more likely to use the Jersey Fresh Logos. Wholesalers who sell more than 75 percent of their annual trade to other wholesale buyers, were found less likely to use the logos and less willing to use the logos in the future.Agribusiness, Marketing,

OAI identifier:
Downloaded from http://purl.umn.edu/36732

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1987). Analysis of In-store Experiments Regarding Sales of Locally Grown Tomatoes,” Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station,
  2. (1995). Associates, “Jersey Fresh Tracking Study”, submitted to Wenzel and Associates on Behalf of the New Jersey Department of Agriculture,
  3. (1989). Constraints and Opportunities in Vegetable Trade.”
  4. (1997). Consumer Preference for Integrated Pest Management Produce,” Masters Thesis,
  5. (1987). Consumer Preferences for Selected Fresh Produce - A Case Study,” Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station,
  6. (1987). Consumers’ Perception of Locally Grown Produce at Retail Outlets,”
  7. (1983). Department of Agriculture, “Annual Report on Agricultural Statistics,”
  8. (1978). Econometic Models, Techniques, and Applications.
  9. (1991). Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts,” Third Edition.
  10. (1971). Elements of Econometrics. McMillan Pub.
  11. (1992). Essentials of Econometrics.
  12. (1985). Estimating Demand Functions for Products that are Differentiated on the Basis of
  13. (1994). Farms Commission, “Ensuring a Fertile Future for New Jersey Agriculture”,
  14. (1990). Fresh Trends 1990: A Profile of Fresh Produce Consumers”, The Packer Focus 1989-1990. Vance Publishing Co.,
  15. (1989). Generic Promotions of Agricultural Products- Balancing Producer’s and
  16. (1988). Inc., “Awareness of and Attitude Toward Jersey Fresh Program,”
  17. (1991). Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions,”
  18. (1994). Returns to the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program -- An Econometric Analysis of the Effects of Promotion Expenditures on Agricultural Cash Receipts in New Jersey,” Report submitted to the Division of Markets,
  19. Should States be in the Agricultural Promotion Business?”
  20. (1989). Tapping Into State Loyalty,” Produce Business.
  21. (1995). Visitations to Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Operations in New Jersey: A Logit Analysis,” New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.