IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/317810.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Tart Cherry Market and Purchasing Preferences in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Kilders, Valerie
  • Lineback, Caitlinn
  • Malone, Trey
  • Caputo, Vincenzina
  • McKendree, Melissa G.S.

Abstract

The overall project goal is to gain a better understanding of consumer demand and preferences for tart cherry products to provide meaningful insights to producers, retailers, and marketers working on the promotion of tart cherry products. To achieve this goal, we conducted a nationwide online survey of 1,235 U.S. consumers in July 2019. We collected a variety of insights on the current tart cherry consumer landscape by asking questions about respondent’s socio-demographics, their consumption, dietary and expenditure habits, their knowledge and awareness of tart cherries and derivate products, as well as respondents’ preferences for local food products and their ethnocentric tendencies. In addition, the survey included two discrete choice experiments on tart cherry juice selection, which were designed to enhance our understanding of (i) what attributes are important to consumers when purchasing tart cherry juice, and (ii) how tart cherry juice performs relative to other juice and soft drink alternatives available in the market. Results suggest that tart cherry consumers systematically differ from non-tart cherry consumers. Our key findings are: 1. Around 56% of respondents consumed either fresh or dried tart cherries and/or tart cherry juice in the last three (3) months. Among those tart cherry consumers almost 50% are 25-44 years old compared to non-consumers, where 40% are 45-64 years old. Tart cherry consumers are also more likely to have children and at least three members in their household, which could indicate that tart cherry consumers tend to be adults with younger children. 2. Those respondents that can be classified as tart cherry consumers consume generally more fruit and fruit derivative products. They also tend to place a higher budget share towards purchasing fruits and vegetables compared to their counterparts. This occurs in conjunction with around 33% of tart cherry consumers following a partially meat and/or animal free diet vs. only 13% of non-tart cherry consumers. 3. The main attributes respondents value more when purchasing tart cherry juice are taste, nutrition, price, safety, and naturalness, with non-consumers putting greater relative importance on all of these attributes than tart cherry consumers except for naturalness. The higher relative importance of nutrition for non-consumers is also reflected in a significantly higher premium they are willing to pay to avoid added sugar in tart cherry juice compared to tart cherry consumers ($0.49 vs. $0.61 per 8 oz bottle). 4. Outside of the main production areas in Michigan and Washington, respondents were uncertain about where tart cherries are produced but are on average willing to pay a premium of around $0.25 per 8 oz bottle for tart cherry juice made in the United States. 5. While non-tart cherry consumers have an overall higher willingness-to-pay (WTP) for different beverage options, the difference in marginal WTP between the juice alternatives is substantially smaller than for tart cherry consumers. Jointly these results demonstrate that existing consumers of tart cherries and non-tart cherry consumers differ from one another in various dimensions. These should be taken into consideration when marketing and promoting tart cherries and their derivative products.

Suggested Citation

  • Kilders, Valerie & Lineback, Caitlinn & Malone, Trey & Caputo, Vincenzina & McKendree, Melissa G.S., 2022. "The Tart Cherry Market and Purchasing Preferences in the United States," Staff Paper Series 317810, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:317810
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.317810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/317810/files/The%20Tart%20Cherry%20Market%20and%20Purchasing%20Preferences%20in%20the%20United%20States_%232022-001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.317810?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    2. Charles Makanyeza & Francois du Toit, 2016. "Measuring Consumer Ethnocentrism: An Assessment of Reliability, Validity and Dimensionality of the CETSCALE in a Developing Market," Journal of African Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 188-208, May.
    3. Claudia Bazzani & Vincenzina Caputo & Rodolfo M. Nayga JR. & Maurizio Canavari, 2017. "Testing Commitment Cost Theory In Choice Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 383-396, January.
    4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    5. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    6. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    7. David L Ortega & Jayson L Lusk & Wen Lin & Vincenzina Caputo, 0. "Predicting responsiveness to information: consumer acceptance of biotechnology in animal products," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(5), pages 1644-1667.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    9. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2017. "Taste Trumps Health And Safety: Incorporating Consumer Perceptions Into A Discrete Choice Experiment For Meat," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 139-157, February.
    10. Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2018. "Choice experiments are not conducted in a vacuum: The effects of external price information on choice behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 335-351.
    11. De Marchi, Elisa & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Banterle, Alessandro, 2016. "Time preferences and food choices: Evidence from a choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 99-109.
    12. Moreno, Francisco & Malone, Trey, 2021. "The Role of Collective Food Identity in Local Food Demand," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 22-42, April.
    13. Vincenzina Caputo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2017. "Cue versus independent food attributes: the effect of adding attributes in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 211-230.
    14. Lagoudakis, Angelos & McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Malone, Trey & Caputo, Vincenzina, 2020. "Incorporating producer opinions into a SWOT analysis of the U.S. tart cherry industry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    15. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    16. Riccardo Scarpa & Raffaele Zanoli & Viola Bruschi & Simona Naspetti, 2013. "Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 165-180.
    17. Lagoudakis, Angelos & Behe, Bridget & Malone, Trey, 2019. "Market Segments in the Fresh Balaton Tart Cherry Market in Michigan," Staff Paper Series 287681, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    2. Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L Lusk & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Am I Getting a Good Deal? Reference‐DependentDecision Making When the Reference Price Is Uncertain," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 132-153, January.
    3. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    4. Vincenzina Caputo, 2020. "Does information on food safety affect consumers' acceptance of new food technologies? The case of irradiated beef in South Korea under a new labelling system and across different information regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1003-1033, October.
    5. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Bazzani, Claudia & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2018. "On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: an induced value choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    7. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    8. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    9. Sanou, Awa & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Kerr, John, 2021. "Introducing an aflatoxin-safe labeling program in complex food supply chains: Evidence from a choice experiment in Nigeria," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    10. Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Ortega, David L., 2014. "Comparing Consumer Preferences for Livestock Production Process Attributes Across Products, Species, and Modeling Methods," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1-17, August.
    11. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Linda Arata & Gianni Guastella & Stefano Pareglio & Riccardo Scarpa & Paolo Sckokai, 2018. "Periurban Agriculture: do the Current EU Agri-environmental Policy Programmes Fit with it?," Working Papers 2018.16, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. Lin Bai & Zhanguo Zhu & Tong Zhang, 2021. "How to Improve Food Quality in the Domestic Market: The Role of “Same Line Same Standard Same Quality”—Evidence from a Consumer Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    14. Leonard Maaya & Michel Meulders & Nick Surmont & Martina Vandebroek, 2018. "Effect of Environmental and Altruistic Attitudes on Willingness-to-Pay for Organic and Fair Trade Coffee in Flanders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    15. Kar Ho Lim & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Contextual reference price in choice experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1288-1306, August.
    16. Marco A. Palma & Myriah D. Johnson & David P. Anderson, 2019. "The effects of experience versus description of attributes on willingness‐to‐pay for beefsteaks," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 129-137, March.
    17. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    18. Altmann, Brianne A. & Anders, Sven & Risius, Antje & Mörlein, Daniel, 2022. "Information effects on consumer preferences for alternative animal feedstuffs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Ortega, David L. & Sun, Jiayu & Lin, Wen, 2022. "Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:317810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.