This paper presents the results of surveys of fresh tomato consumers conducted in 1990 in four New Jersey produce venues: a supermarket, a farmers' market, an at-the-farm store, and two roadside stands. The surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews. Consumers' preferences, purchasing patterns, attitudes and demographics were examined. Results of the surveys suggest that supermarkets should emphasize price and convenience in marketing fresh tomatoes; whereas farmers' markets, at-the-farm stores, and roadside stands should emphasize taste and freshness.Consumer/Household Economics,

Brumfield, Robin G.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Differences in Consumers of Fresh Tomatoes at
Four Retail Venues
Robin G. Brumfield
This paper presents the results of surveys of fresh tomato consumers conducted in 1990 in four
New Jersey produce venues: a supermarket, a farmers’ market, an at-th-farm store, and two
roadside stands, The surveyswere conductedthrough faceto-face interviews. Consumers’
preferences, purchasingpatterns, attitudesand demographicswere examined. Resultsof the
surveyssuggestthat supermarketsshouldemphasizeprice and conveniencein marketingfresh
tomatoes;whereas farmers’ markets, at-the-farm stores, and roadside stands should emphasize
taste and freshness.
Rutgers Cooperative Extension conducted surveys at
four different marketing outlets to determine what
motivates consumers to purchase Jersey Fresh tomatoes
at each of the outlets. A second aim of the 1990 sur-
vey was to determine the differences, if any, in the
demographics of these respondents.
During two previous Rutgers surveys, which
were conducted only at supermarkets, a few consumers
mentioned that they also purchased tomatoes at other
outlets (&utileld, et al., 1993, Brudleld 1989a,
Brumfield 1989b). These specific places were roadside
stands, farmers’ markets and at-the-farm stores (those
located right on the farm). Data on consumers who
purchase tomatoes from supermarkets were already
obtained in the 1988 and 1989 Rutgers Cooperative
Extension studies. Therefore, for a better representa-
tion of additional tomato outlets, a third study was
conducted at a supermarket, two roadside stands, a
farmers’ market, and an at-the-farm store.
Table 1indicates that a roughly equal percentage
of people purchase tomatoes yearly or seasonally at the
farmers’ market. While the majority of the respon-
dents at the other sites purchase tomatoes year round,
purchasers who frequented at-the-farm stores and road-
side stands tended to be more likely to purchase toma-
toes seasonally than the supermarket purchasers, who
tended to purchase tomatoes year-round, This seems
to indicate that shoppers who visit non-supermarket
locations are looking for local tomatoes produced in
season, and tend not to buy tomatoes when vine-rip-
ened local tomatoes are not available.
Robin G. Brumtield is with the Department of Extension
Spwialists, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Although preference for Jersey Fresh tomatoes
is quite high at supermarkets, this figure is nearly 20
percent higher at the other three retail outlets (Table 2).
This indicates that non-supermarket shoppers seek out
local, vine-ripened tomatoes more than supermarket
shoppers do.
When shoppers were asked for a reason as to
why they preferred Jersey Fresh to other tomatoes, the
most common answers were taste and freshness.
Another reason was that they felt Jersey Fresh was the
best tomato overall (Table 3).
When given a list of attributes and asked to rate
Jersey Fresh tomatoes as better, worse, or the same as
other tomatoes in each category, Jersey Fresh tomatoes
were rated higher by respondents at non-supermarket
venues than by A&P supermarket respondents (Table
4), An explanation may be that respondenta who fre-
quent supermarkets are convenience shoppers (see
Table 20). They may not go out of their way to shop
for specialty items such as Jersey Fresh tomatoes and
therefore appear to be less knowledgeable than non-
supermarket shoppers. Respondents at the other three
sites go specifically to these sites for the freshness and
taste of Jersey Fresh tomatoes. Unlike A&P, which
carried other tomato brands, the other three sites car-
ried Jersey Fresh tomatoes exclusively.
Over half of the respondents felt that the price
of Jersey Fresh tomatoes was better than prices of
other tomatoes (Table 4). However, when asked which
was a more expensive place to purchase tomatoes, a
larger majority of the respondents at the non-supermar-
ket sites aaid supermarkets were 10 percent to 50 per-
cent more expensive than places where they were
shopping (Tables 5 & 6).
Almost threequarters of the respondents were
not aware of any of the Jersey Fresh promotional pro-
Journal of Food Distribution Research February 941page 93Table 1. When tomatoea are purchased (in percentages)
Purchase At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
pattern A&P farm store market stands Mean
Year Round 79 66 49 69 66
Seasonal 21 32 51 31 34
Off-season o 2 0 0 0
Never o 0 0 0 0
Table 2. Percentages of people who prefer Jersey Fresh
Purchase At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
pattern A&P farm store market stands Mean
Prefer 79 98 94 99 95
Do not prefer 15 2 4 0 3
Unsure 6 0 2 1 2
Table 3. Reasons respondenta give for preferring Jersey Fresh tomatoea
(in percentage)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
Reasons A&P farm store market stands Mean
Taste 41 62 49 80 64
Freshness 15 8 11 3 8
Best tomato 6 20 23 12 15
Loyalty 6 2 4 1 3
Other 6 0 2 0 1
February 941page 94 Journal of Food Distribution ResearchTable 4. Attributes that were rated better in Jersey Fresh tomatoes than other tomatoes
(in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
Attributes A&P farm store market stands Mean
Overall 85 97 94 93 93
Freshness 74 97 96 95 92
Taste 74 97 96 94 92
Color 77 81 100 88 84
Appearance 74 80 79 85 81
Nutrition 50 73 68 57 62
uniformity 53 66 55 71 64
Price 50 68 55 64 62
Storage Life 44 58 43 64 55
Table 5. Are tomatoes more expensive at specific venues?
Location of Survey
Venue where
tomatoes are At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
more expensive A&P farm store market stands
Supermarket 94 92 84 79
Roadside stand 6 6 16 16
At-the farm o 2 0 2
Farmers’ market O 0 0 2
Table 6. Respondents’ estimates of increased expeme (in percentages)
Location of Survey
Percent
Higher At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
Price A&P farm store market stands
1-9 1 5 0 2
10-19 7 17 10 31
20-29 18 14 25 26
50-100 0 8 7 7
Journal of Food Distribution Research February 94/page 95grams (Table 7). The most frequently mentioned
factor in awareness was television.
Over a third of the respondents from non-super-
market venues ate tomatoes seven days a week, while
only 15 percent of supermarket respondents ate toms-
toes every day (Table 8). The most popular meal at
which tomatoes were eaten was dinner (Table 9),
About one-fifth of the respondents also ate tomatoes at
lunch.
The majority of respondents at all sites believe
that all attributes are either very important or important
to their decision to purchase tomatoes (Table 10). The
top three categories in order of importance to con-
sumers’ purchasing decisions were lack of blemishes,
appearance, and color.
Most consumers prefer a medium size, relatively
firm tomato (Tables 11 and 12). Although more con-
sumers at the roadside stand said medium-sized toms-
toes were the preferred size, their preference for the
small and large sized tomato are almost equally distrib-
uted. However, other consumers at other locations
ovenvhelmingly preferred the medium size.
Only 11 to 12 percent of shoppers at farmers’
markets and at-the-farm stores earned over $70,000 per
year, while over one-third of A&P and roadside stand
shoppers earned over $70,000 yearly (Table 13). No
A&P shopper earned under $30,000 per year, but
nearly a third of shoppers at farmers’ markets and at-
the-farm stores had annual incomes of less $30,000.
This means that if the shelf life and quality of Jersey
Fresh tomatoes is improved and consistent, this market
segment can be increased at supermarkets and roadside
stands. Also, supermarkets would be more willing to
purchase more Jersey Fresh tomatoes for their produce
section.
Sixty-three percent of A&P shoppers have either
a college degree or have a degree beyond college; this
is true for less than 50 percent of the non-supermarket
shoppers (Table 14). This higher percentage of edu-
cated consumers either have less time to shop or are
convenience shoppers. They tend not to have had
home gardening experience and therefore are not aware
of any taste or freshness differences between vine-rip-
ened tomatoes and gassed tomatoes.
Most of the respondents are over 35 years of
age (Table 15). Another study has shown that those
who fall within this age group are conscious of nutri-
tion. However, the largest group of the respondents
who bought tomatoes at A&P supermarkets were under
25 years of age. None of the supermarket respondents
were over 65. The opposite was true for at-the-farm
store respondents. Nearly 30 percent of these respon-
dents were over 65, but a minimal number of people
under 25 appeared to purchase tomatoes at this loca-
tion.
The respondents in this Rutgers study were, for
the most part, caucasian and female (Tables 16& 17).
A slightly higher percentage of shoppers at the A&P
supermarkets were female than at the other three loca-
tions.
Although price ranges were different at the four
locations, most consumers paid about $0.99 per pound
for their tomatoes. The exception were farmers’ mar-
ket respondents who paid $0.90 per pound. Most of
the respondents said the supermarket was a more
expensive place to shop for tomatoes. However, in
spite of this perception, supermarket prices were actu-
ally lower, ranging from $0.79 to $2.00, while farm-
ers’ market prices ranged from $0.90 to $2.50 (Table
18).
A majority of rwpondents at all four sites said
they were aware of that most tomatoes grown outside
New Jersey and sold in New Jersey were gassed toma-
toes (Table 19). Respondents from the farmers’ mar-
kets and at-the-farm stems were more aware of this
fact than roadside stand and supermarket respondents.
However, roadside stands and supermarket respondents
had about the same percentage response for this ques-
tion. An explanation for this may be that respondents
at the roadside stand also shop at supermarkets, and
stop at roadside stands on their way to or from work.
It appears that these respondents do not go out
of their way to seek roadside stands. A majority of
them drove an average of two miles to this site (Table
20). Respondents who frequented the at-the-farm store
traveled longer distances, These shoppers probably
make a special trip to this location to purchase fresh
produce.
Conclusions
Our survey of consumers who purchase tomatoes at
four market venues (supermarket, roadside stand,
farmers’ market, and at-the-farm store) suggests that
consumers who prefer Jersey Fresh tomatoes are will-
ing to make a special trip to a venue that sells
in--n, vine-ripened tomatoes. These consumers
believe that they will find fresher, tastier, less expen-
sive, higher quality tomatoes when they purchase them
at a direct marketing outlet. Consumers’ perception
that supermarket tomatoes are more expensive than
those at the other three venues was, in fact, wrong.
The results of this survey suggest that direct
marketers of fresh tomatoes should emphasize promo-
tions based on taste and quality rather than convenience
or price when marketing. Supermarkets should empha-
size convenience and price while pointing out that they,
too, sell Jersey Fresh tomatoes in season.
February 94/page 96 Journal of Food Distribution ResearchReferences
Brooker, J. R., D. B. Eastwood, and R. H. Orr.
“Consumer’s Perceptions of Locally Grown
Produce at Retail Outlets. ” Journal of Food
Diwibwion Research 18(1):99-107, 1987.
Brooker, J. R., D. B. Eashvood, C. L. Stout, and R.
H. Orr. “Branding Locally Grown Produce at
Retail Supermarkets. ” Journal of Food
Distribution Research 19(1):51-60, 1988.
Brumfield, R. G,, A. O. Adelaja, and K. Lininger.
“Consumer Tastes, Preferences, and Behavior in
Purchasing Fresh Tomatoes. ” Journal of lhe
American Society of Honicultural Science
111(3):433-438, 1993.
Bmrnfield, R. G. “Marketing Opportunities for
Premium Jersey Fresh Tomatoes. ” in 1989 New
Jersey Vegetable Trial Results, pp.49-56.
Compiled and edited by S. Reiners and S. A.
Garrison. Rutgers Cooperative Extension
Bulletin E141., 1989.
Brumfield, R. G. “The ‘Jersey Fresh’ Challenge: An
Analysis of a Survey Taste Test for Jersey
Fresh Tomatoes. ” Fatm Management News &
Views 1(1):3-4, 1989.
Goldman, A. “Consumer Response to Premium
Quality Branded Produce: The Case of Israeli
Ghsshouse Tomatoes. “ Applia! Agricultural
Research 3(5):264-268, 1988.
Journal of Food Distribution Research February 94/page 97Table 7. Awareness of Jersey Fresh program (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
A&P farm store market stands Mean
Are you aware of the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program?
No 79 68 68
Yes 21 32 32
Method of awareness (in percentages)
Television 38
In-store promotion 25
Newspaper/magazine 13
Radio 13
Billboard 13
Personal use o
Other o
Word of mouth O
25
11
14
11
7
14
11
7
33
19
7
15
7
15
0
4
79
21
28
24
24
12
4
4
4
0
74
26
30
18
15
13
7
10
5
3
Table 8. Times a week tomatoes are eaten (in percentage)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
A&P farm store market stands Mean
Once
Twice
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Over 7
9
15
26
21
9
3
15
0
3
8
10
20
10
3
41
2
3
16
10
18
8
0
39
0
6
9
14
15
12
9
35
0
6
11
14
18
10
5
34
0
Table 9. Meals at which tomatoes are eaten (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
A&P farm store market stands Mean
Breakfast 3 0 2 1 1
Lunch 21 18 28 19 20
Dinner 76 80 70 80 77
Snack o 2 0 0 0
February 94/page 98 Journal of Food Distribution ResearchTable 10. Importance of tomato attributes (in percentages)
Attributes are very important
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
Attributes A&P farm store market stands
Lack of Blemishes 56 47 45 49
Appearance 44 42 43 42
Color 32 32 38 31
Shelf Life 35 27 23 25
Price 26 22 36 16
Size 12 8 23 14
Attributes are important
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
Attributes A&P farm store market staods
Lack of Blemishes 38 42 45 41
Appearance 53 49 51 52
Color 62 59 62 64
Shelf Life 44 49 34 44
Price 62 54 45 47
Size 65 58 45 51
Attributes are unimportant
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
Attributes A&P farm store market stands
Lack of Blemishes 6 10 11 10
Appearance 3 8 6 6
Color 6 8 0 5
Shelf Life 21 24 43 31
Price 12 24 19 37
Size 24 34 32 36
Table 11. Preferred tomato size (in percentage)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
A&P farm store market stands MearI
small 3 7 2 31 15
Medium 71 69 79 46 62
Large 26 22 17 23 22
Journal of Food Distribution Research February 94/page 99Table 12. Preferred firmness (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Gverall
A&P farm store market stands Mean
1 0 0 0 0 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
0
0
18
18
9
32
9
14
2
3
2
19
5
12
29
7
22
0
0
2
22
18
10
22
12
12
0
6
20
12
19
19
18
9
15
0
1
3
20
12
14
24
9
16
Table 13. Average annual household income of respondents (in percentage)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Gverall
In Dollars A&P farm store market stands Mean
Under 20,000
20,000-30,000
30,001-40,000
40,001-50,000
50,001-60,000
60,001-70,000
70,001-80,000
80,001-90,000
9O,OO1-1OO,OOO
Gver 100,000
0
0
13
25
16
9
6
6
6
19
13
18
15
9
19
15
4
0
4
4
10
20
17
17
17
7
7
2
0
2
11
8
18
11
11
4
8
6
11
10
10
12
16
14
15
9
7
3
6
8
Table 14. Highest level of education attained by respondents (in percentages)
Education At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Gverall
Level A&P farm store market stands Mean
Below High School 6 5 4 2 4
High School
Graduate 24 36 28 28 29
Some College 9 22 21 27 22
College Graduate 47 31 23 25 29
Degree Beyond
College 14 7 23 16 15
February 941page 100 Journal of Food Distribution ResearchTable 15. Age of respondents (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
Age A&P farm store market stands Mean
Under 25 41 3 2 1 8
25-35 29 14 13 15 17
36-45 12 17 26 21 19
46-55 6 19 30 21 20
56-65 12 19 17 20 18
Over 65 0 29 11 20 18
Table 16. Gender of respondents (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
Gender A&P farm store market stands Mean
Female 91 92 71 91 88
Male 6 2 17 5 7
Table 17. Race of respondents (in percentage)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside Overall
Race A&P farm store market stands Mean
Caucasian 79 71 57 64 67
Africau-American 18 24 36 32 29
Other o 0 2 3 0
Journal of Food Distribution Research February 941page 101Table 18. Tomato prices at various locations (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
Prices A&P farm store market stands
$.79
$.89
$.90
$.99
$1.00
$1.25
$1.29
$1.50
$1.55
$1.75
$1.80
$2.00
$2.25
$2.50
29
3
0
61
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
49
0
0
45
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
35
3
7
21
0
0
0
3
0
24
3
3
0
22
0
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 19. Awareness of gassed tomatoes (in percentages)
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside overall
A&P farm store market stands Mean
Yes 68 86 72 62 71
No 32 14 28 38 29
Table 20. Miles driven to purchase tomatoes
At-the- Farmers’ Roadside
Miles A&P farm store market stands
<1 mile 23 9 31 15
1-2 miles 40 31 46 46
2.1-5 miles 30 37 17 24
>5 miles 7 23 6 15
February 94/page 102 Journal of Food Distribution Research

DIFFERENCES IN CONSUMERS OF FRESH TOMATOES AT FOUR RETAIL VENUES

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics