Determination of Part-Worth Utilities of Food Labels Using Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Stephan Meyerding

Transcription

1 Determination of Part-Worth Utilities of Food Labels Using Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Stephan Meyerding

2 1 Introduction Picture source: Date

3 1 Introduction 1.1 Megatrends in German Horticulture (own illustration) 2

4 1 Introduction 1.1 Megatrends in German Horticulture Megatrends fruits and vegetables (Zühlsdorf 2012) Convenience Functional Food Natural Food Convenience picture source: Date Functional food picture source: od-beverage-nutrition/foodnavigatorasia.com/business/lycored-s-premix-plant-in-china-setto-leverage-functional-food-growth/ eng- GB/LycoRed-s-premix-plant-in-China-set-to-leveragefunctional-food-growth.jpg, Date Natural food picture source: Date

5 1 Introduction 1.2 Social Desirability Many studies report a high demand for sustainable e.g. climate friendly production, based on direct questions (Gahmann 2012, Bhardwaj 2012, Vanclay 2011, Schlich 2011, Dirks 2010) Social desirability (Lusk, 2006) Picture source drinking: skaliert/weihnachtsfeier kopf-gross /2,w%3D465,c%3D0.bild.j peg, Date Picture source sex: ic.com/static/managed/img/scitech/6 60/371/female_orgasm_640.jpg, Date Picture source gypsy: b265.jpg, Date Picture source Fairtrade: ci3x2l-w620/Fairtrade.jpg, Date

6 1 Introduction 1.3 Aim of the Present Study Quantify part-worth utilities of product characteristics such as Price Origin Food labels Support the assumption of social desirability Picture source target: Date

7 2 Method Image Source: Date

8 2 Method 2.1 Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Real purchasing situation simulated in a quasi-experiment Origin Price Label Morocco Germany Spain Netherlands Regional / local (own illustration) Organic Fairtrade / A heart for the grower No label Carbon Footprint (with numbers) Carbon Footprint (without number) 7

9 2 Method 2.2 Questionnaire Web-based survey (June to December 2014, N=925) Choice sets Ranking task Likert scales Demographics 25 x (own illustration) 8

10 2 Method 2.2 Questionnaire Web-based survey (June to December 2014, N=925) Choice sets Ranking task Likert scales Demographics (own illustration)

11 2 Method 2.2 Questionnaire Web-based survey (June to December 2014, N=925) Choice sets Ranking task Likert scales Demographics Unimportant Essential 1. Have a deep red color 2. Come from Germany 3. Are cheap 4. Have an organic label 19. Are not to small (own illustration) 10

12 2 Method 2.2 Questionnaire Web-based survey (June to December 2014, N=925) Choice sets Ranking task Likert scales Demographics Age Gender Education Net household income Residential People living in a household Children under 12 years Amount of tomatoes bought in the last 2 weeks (own illustration) 11

13 3 Results and Discussion Image Source: Date

14 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Sample Origin of Participants Distribution of Educational Qualification N = 622 (own illustration) 13

15 3 Results and Discussion 3.2 Results Conjoint Analysis and Ranking Task N = 645 Ranking task (N=534) 1. Fair Trade / A heart for the grower (1,851) 2. Organic label (1,604) 3. Carbon Footprint (with number) (979) 4. Carbon Footprint (no number) (790) (own illustration) 14

16 3 Results and Discussion 3.3 Results Likert Scale n = Ø 606 (own illustration) 15

17 3 Results and Discussion 3.4 Preferences and Demographics ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) * The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed) A B C D E F G H A Amount of T. bought in last 2 weeks 1 B People living in a household.10* 1 C Children under 12.12**.44** 1 D Income-Index.08.38**.27** 1 E Gender (w=1, m=2) -.10* F Age.05.09* **.02 1 G Education-Index *.01.11*.09* -.40** 1 H Residential area ** -.15** -.14** **.17** 1 1 T. are from the region.04.08*.02.13** -.09*.10* * 2 T. are from Germany ** * -.10* 3 T. are from Europe (the EU) ** ** 4 T. are cheap **.08* -.19**.00.09* 5 T. were produced climate-friendly * -.11* T. were produced environmentally friendly T. producer gets a "decent" price * 8 T. have an organic label ** -.10* T. have a carbon footprint label ** -.14** T. have CO 2 label (with CO 2 -indication).09* ** -.09* * 11 If not from GER T. carry Fairtrade Label * -.10* * 12 T. are not too big * T. are not too small *.12** -.09* T. smell good **.12** -.14** T. are not too hard ** * 16 T. are not too soft T. have a deep red color The packing size is not too large * The classification *.12** -.11** -.08 ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) (own illustration) 16

18 4 Conclusion Picture source: Date

19 4 Conclusion Major limitation: different label designs probably lead to different results Different results when using different Methods Especially in the cases of price and carbon footprint label Local is the new organic Carbon footprints (with the current design, which is also used by FROSTA and was used by TESCO) are no appropriate marketing communication tools The results partly support the assumption of social desirability 18

20 Thank you Questions and suggestions: Stephan Meyerding Herrenhäuser Str Hannover, Germany Tel.: / meyerding@zbg.uni-hannover.de Picture source: Date