IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlofdr/27570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact Of Changing Consumer Preferences On Willingness-To-Pay For Beef Steaks In Alternative Retail Packaging

Author

Listed:
  • Schmitz, John D.
  • Menkhaus, Dale J.
  • Whipple, Glen D.
  • Hoffman, Elizabeth
  • Field, Ray A.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify how consumer perceptions of selected attributes of beef steaks, individual consumer demographics and perceived changes in purchases of substitute meats affect willingness-to-pay for beef rib-eye steaks in the traditional overwrapped styrofoam tray and vacuum skin packages. A laboratory auction was used to obtain willingness-to-pay data. The results suggest that health related factors, particularly the concern regarding cholesterol, reduced the willingness-to-pay for beef rib-eye steaks, regardless of package type. For the vacuum skin package to be successful, information about the package is necessary, along with providing a consistent and quality product, particularly with respect to trim.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmitz, John D. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Whipple, Glen D. & Hoffman, Elizabeth & Field, Ray A., 1993. "Impact Of Changing Consumer Preferences On Willingness-To-Pay For Beef Steaks In Alternative Retail Packaging," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 24(2), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:27570
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.27570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/27570/files/24020023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.27570?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. Coursey, Don L & Smith, Vernon L, 1984. " Experimental Tests of an Allocation Mechanism for Private, Public or Externality Goods," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(4), pages 468-484.
    2. Alan Barkema & Mark Drabenstott, 1990. "A crossroads for the cattle industry," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, vol. 75(Nov), pages 47-66.
    3. Coppinger, Vicki M & Smith, Vernon L & Titus, Jon A, 1980. "Incentives and Behavior in English, Dutch and Sealed-Bid Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Schmitz, John D. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 1991. "Food Nutritional Quality: A Pilot Study On Consumer Awareness," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 22(2), pages 1-16, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    2. Yu, Lingling & Hailu, Getu, 2010. "Household Demand for Convenience Chicken Meat Products in Canada," Consumer and Market Demand Network Papers 310299, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.

    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. Menkhaus, Dale J. & Borden, George W. & Whipple, Glen D. & Hoffman, Elizabeth & Field, Ray A., 1992. "An Empirical Application Of Laboratory Experimental Auctions In Marketing Research," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Hurley, Sean P. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1999. "The Potential For Marketing Pork Products With Embedded Environmental Attributes: Results From An Experimental Study," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21598, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Don L. Coursey & John L. Hovis & William D. Schulze, 1987. "The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(3), pages 679-690.
    4. Brunner, Christoph & Hu, Audrey & Oechssler, Jörg, 2014. "Premium auctions and risk preferences: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 467-484.
    5. Peter Cramton & Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Ozbay & Pacharasut Sujarittanonta, 2012. "Discrete clock auctions: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(2), pages 309-322, June.
    6. David L. Ortega & Robert S. Shupp & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Jayson L. Lusk, 2018. "Mitigating overbidding behavior in agribusiness and food marketing research: Results from induced value hybrid auction experiments," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 887-893, October.
    7. Patrick Bajari & Ali Hortaçsu, 2004. "Economic Insights from Internet Auctions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 457-486, June.
    8. Don Coursey, 1987. "Markets and the measurement of value," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 291-297, October.
    9. Schär, Fabian & Schuler, Katrin & Wagner, Tobias, 2020. "Blockchain Vending Machine: A Smart Contract-Based Peer-to-Peer Marketplace for Physical Goods," MPRA Paper 101733, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ma, Marshall Xiaoyin & Noussair, Charles N. & Renneboog, Luc, 2022. "Colors, Emotions, and the Auction Value of Paintings," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    11. Cason, Timothy N. & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Sjostrom, Tomas & Yamato, Takehiko, 2006. "Secure implementation experiments: Do strategy-proof mechanisms really work?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 206-235, November.
    12. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Anthony M. Kwasnica & John O. Ledyard & Dave Porter & Christine DeMartini, 2005. "A New and Improved Design for Multiobject Iterative Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 419-434, March.
    14. Jason Shachat & Lijia Tan, 2015. "An Experimental Investigation of Auctions and Bargaining in Procurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1036-1051, May.
    15. Roberto Savona & Maxence Soumare & Jørgen Vitting Andersen, 2015. "Financial Symmetry and Moods in the Market," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Brands, Devi K. & Verhoef, Erik T. & Knockaert, Jasper & Koster, Paul R., 2020. "Tradable permits to manage urban mobility: Market design and experimental implementation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 34-46.
    17. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Moldovanu, Benny, 2004. "An experimental analysis of auctions with interdependent valuations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 54-85, July.
    18. Dale J. Menkhaus & Damien P. M. Colin & Glen D. Whipple & Ray A. Field, 1993. "The effects of perceived product attributes on the perception of beef," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 57-63.
    19. Unterschultz, James R. & Quagrainie, Kwamena K. & Veeman, Michele M., 1996. "Consumer Preferences for Biopreservatives in Beef and Pork Packaging and Testing the Importance of Product Origin," Project Report Series 24043, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    20. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:jlofdr:27570. 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/fdrssea.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.