SURVEY
Executive Summary
The University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP) has funded a grant with UC Cooperative Extension and California State University, Chico concerning a locally produced beef product called Natural beef. The primary objective fulfilled here is to report the findings related to the evaluation of consumer acceptability of Natural beef.
To best serve the producer in the marketplace, information needed to be gathered from potential consumers regarding their overall impressions of Natural beef products. Given the budgetary, time and product availability constraints on this project, only small consumer data samples were collected. Two economical methods of data collection were used. The first method for collecting data was a short written survey. The second method involved focus groups representing two targeted populations: food service representatives and "discriminating" consumers.
Prior to a discussion of the findings for the local market, an understanding of national trends is worth reviewing. This will assist the reader in terms of seeing similarities between overall national preferences and the Chico region’s consumers’ preferences with regard to food and beef products. After a discussion of each of the following: 1) national trends, 2) the supermarket survey, and 3) information gathered during the focus groups; general conclusions for this portion of the project will be discussed.
National trends in the beef industry are mixed. These national trends, along with information about local preferences, can give some information about how to market a product to consumers. Some of the prominent national trends are:
65% of all consumers eat beef 2 or more times per week,
Per capita beef consumption peaked in the mid-1970's and has declined since,
81% of women surveyed were the primary grocery shopper for their household,
Women tend to be price watchers and label (nutrition readers) in much greater number than men,
Consumers have become more health conscious and are concerned about following a low fat diet,
The perception among consumers that beef contains too much fat and cholesterol has driven the market since the 1980's.
While health concerns play a major role in meat consumption patterns, the ability of a product to fit into American’s fast-paced lifestyles is also important. Quick-to-fix recipes and pre-packaged meals are the backbones of many families’ diets. The recent National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) ad campaign featuring meals that are quick and easy to prepare (30 minutes or less) seems to have been successful. Their ads targeted women 25 to 54 years old; the results indicate that 70% recognize the slogan. Since that ad campaign began the NCBA has received 5000 to 7000 recipe requests per month. The objective of the NCBA is to change the perception of beef to a more contemporary, convenient and healthy food product.
The written survey was conducted to obtain some preliminary information regarding consumer preferences in the Chico region. The primary goal was to learn consumers’ consumption patterns with regard to beef and whether a Natural beef product had a potential market in this region. The survey instrument was a questionnaire given to customers in front of local supermarkets. Mail surveys and telephone surveys were not used since they would have been cost and time prohibitive for this grant.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection Procedures The work effort involved in conducting the survey of the selected supermarket customers had the following aspects:
? Preparation of the survey instrument.
? Selection and training of field staff.
? Contacting the supermarkets for permission and scheduling of on-site surveys.
? Collecting data at selected sites.
A brief discussion of each of these aspects is provided below.
Preparation of Survey Instrument The focus of the data collection effort was twofold. First, the survey was intended to determine preferences of consumers in the Chico region regarding beef consumption. Second, it was intended to obtain information regarding the potential market of a natural beef product in this region. The survey instrument was developed to meet the data collection needs. Appendix A contains the final version of the survey instrument.
The survey instrument was kept simple to make both the administering of the questionnaire easier and to make those surveyed more responsive. Questions were arranged by topic areas with easy questions placed first and more sensitive questions placed last. Topic areas were also ordered to facilitate responses. Questions were worded so as to avoid prejudicial implications and so as not to be suggestive of any particular answer.
Field Staff The field staff for data collection was comprised of a senior agricultural business major and a senior agricultural science major. Training sessions for the field staff were held at the beginning of the data collection process to inform them of the specific procedures to be used during this data collection effort. The topics covered in the training sessions included: general data collection and coding procedures, review of the data collection instrument, and practice in interviewing. Special attention was devoted to ensuring that field staff did not influence the respondents answers. Both staff were trained so that potential questions and problems could be dealt with from the start. This procedure ensured consistency in data collection practices by the different surveyors.
Supermarket Scheduling Several supermarkets in the Chico region were contacted to ask permission to conduct a survey at their store. Most stores declined to allow a survey to be conducted on their premises since the product, Natural beef, would not be available in their store. Two supermarkets did agree to allow the survey to be conducted outside their stores -- Raley’s and Safeway on East Avenue in Chico, CA. The questionnaires were given on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon.
On-Site Data Collection The field staff made contact with a customer and explained the purpose of the survey. Anonymity and confidentially were guaranteed. The questionnaire took about two to three minutes to complete. Some of the data collected were through inspection by the surveyor (such as estimated age). Each completed data collection form was thoroughly reviewed by the field staff to make sure forms were filled out completely. Initial coding and verifying of the completed survey instruments was performed by each surveyor. Items were checked for missing data or for possible inconsistencies at the time the questionnaire was given.
Database Preparation and Validation Preparation of the database containing the data collected during the on-site visits involved coding, validating, editing, and processing the data. Each data element collected during the surveying was assigned a variable name. Variable names were chosen to be reasonably mnemonic so as to reflect the type of data the element contained. The data were entered using a form designed in Excel. After collection the data were checked for consistency. Responses for a given household were cross-checked against each other to ensure they were consistent.
RESULTS
This questionnaire was administered to 111 people on January 11 and 12, 1997 in Chico, California. Among the respondents over 50% were female which is consistent with other studies that have shown that women are the primary food shoppers. The average household size is estimated to be 2.7 (the national average household size in 1990 was 2.63 people). The average age of the respondents was 43 years old; this is based on estimates of age made by the interviewers’ own observations. All other demographic data appear in Table 1.
Table 2 shows all data gathered regarding the meat and beef buying habits of the respondents. Five percent were non-meat eaters (the national average of non-meat eaters is estimated to be around 4%). Among the meat eaters, meat is consumed an average of 4.5 times a week, with only 2% of meat eaters consuming no beef. Among the beef-eating respondents (approximately 94% of the entire sample population) beef is consumed an average of 2.7 times per week with 80% of that beef being purchased at the supermarket. Seventy-six percent of the beef-eating respondents prefer a particular grade of meat with 68% of them preferring "select" more than "choice". This may indicate that consumers are looking for leaner cuts or they are uniformed as to what constitutes a "higher" quality beef grade.
Other findings in Table 2 indicate that the top five factors influencing consumers’ beef purchases are (listed by greatest importance)? 1)color of meat (85%); 2)cut of the product (83%); 3)amount of visible fat (73%); 4)price per pound (68%); and 5)marbling (67%). The least influencing factors were price per serving and product storage concerns.
Table 3 provides information regarding concerns about beef products and interest in a Natural beef product. Only 56% of the respondents had concerns regarding beef. Among those concerns, the most important were 1)health (72%); 2)food safety and sanitation (59%); and 3)product may contain hormones (52%). Among those with concerns, the primary response has been to reduce the amount of beef purchased relative to their previous buying habits. After the interviewers described the Natural beef product, over 85% of all meat eaters expressed interest in a forage-fed beef product. Of those respondents expressing an interest, 55% they would be willing to pay an average of 12% more than what they pay for standard beef.
Answers given by consumers about their willingness to pay more for a product and the amount they are willing to pay should be handled with caution. Oftentimes consumers’ actual behavior relative to what they said they would do are substantially different, especially in terms of price prediction.
One way many supermarkets have responded to the consumer trend toward healthier products is by charging higher prices for leaner ground beef. Data on ground beef leanness and price per pound were gathered from the 9 major supermarkets in the Chico area in September 1997. Table 4 shows the prices of various types of ground beef ? from regular ground beef (average of 73% lean) to extra lean ground beef (average of 89% lean). In the table, price differences were measured between standard ground beef and extra lean ground beef, and between lean ground beef and extra lean ground beef. The comparisons were made with only extra lean since Natural ground beef is estimated to be 93% lean; this is the level of the leanest ground beef available in the supermarket.
The average price per pound for regular ground beef was $1.44 while the average price per pound for extra lean ground beef was $2.82. This represents a 48% price spread between these two products; the range in price differential between these two products was 27% - 67%. This reflects a belief of these supermarkets that consumers are indeed willing to spend substantially more for leaner beef products. The price differential between lean and extra lean ground beef is 30% which is substantial considering that, on average, this only reflects a 7% greater amount of leanness between the products. Upon inspection of Table 4, one could conclude that for Natural ground beef products consumers are more likely to be willing to spend substantially more than the 12% estimated from the surveys.
{ Top of Page }{ Table of Contents }
For more information about SAREP email link.