IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i7p2800-d1617524.html

Analyzing Marketing Mix Strategies and Personal Factors Influencing BISI Hybrid Maize Seed Purchases: Insights from Agricultural Development in Soppeng District, Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Sulfiana Rustam

    (Graduate School, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar 90245, Indonesia)

  • Rahim Darma

    (Laboratory of Agribusiness, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar 90245, Indonesia)

  • Muhammad Hatta Jamil

    (Master Agribusiness Study Program, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar 90245, Indonesia)

  • A. Nixia Tenriawaru

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar 90245, Indonesia)

  • Letty Fudjaja

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Hasanuddin, Makassar 90245, Indonesia)

  • Rida Akzar

    (Center for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia)

  • Nolila Mohd Nawi

    (Department of Agribusiness & Bioresource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Hamed Noralla Bakheet Ali

    (Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture, Omdurman Islamic University, Omdurman 14415, Sudan)

Abstract

As a staple food and a key component of livestock feed, the growing demand for maize in Indonesia has spurred the expansion of hybrid maize cultivation. However, despite advancements in seed technology and government initiatives to boost maize production, farmers in rural areas continue to face obstacles in accessing high-quality seeds. This study explores the influence of the marketing mix—encompassing product, price, promotion, and distribution—alongside personal factors on farmers’ purchasing decisions for hybrid maize seeds in Soppeng District. Utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) and survey data from 100 respondents, the findings indicate that product quality and price are the most critical determinants, with farmers prioritizing seed performance and affordability. Distribution also plays a vital role in rural areas, ensuring that farmers can readily access high-quality seeds. At the same time, personal factors such as farming experience and income significantly shape purchasing behavior. Notably, promotional efforts appear to have a limited impact, suggesting that traditional marketing approaches may not be the most effective in this context. Seed companies should focus on product development, refine pricing strategies, and strengthen distribution networks to enhance market penetration. In parallel, policymakers can facilitate access to agricultural credit, invest in rural infrastructure, and promote farmer education programs to improve purchasing power and awareness. Ultimately, adapting marketing strategies to align with local economic and cultural conditions can drive greater adoption of hybrid seeds, boost agricultural productivity, and contribute to the long-term sustainability of rural farming communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sulfiana Rustam & Rahim Darma & Muhammad Hatta Jamil & A. Nixia Tenriawaru & Letty Fudjaja & Rida Akzar & Nolila Mohd Nawi & Hamed Noralla Bakheet Ali, 2025. "Analyzing Marketing Mix Strategies and Personal Factors Influencing BISI Hybrid Maize Seed Purchases: Insights from Agricultural Development in Soppeng District, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:7:p:2800-:d:1617524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/2800/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/2800/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shoaib Akhtar & Azhar Abbas & Muhammad Amjed Iqbal & Muhammad Rizwan & Abdus Samie & Muhammad Faisal & Jam Ghulam Murtaza Sahito, 2021. "What Determines the Uptake of Multiple Tools to Mitigate Agricultural Risks among Hybrid Maize Growers in Pakistan? Findings from Field-Level Data," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Valkonen, Anni, 2021. "Examining sources of land tenure (in)security. A focus on authority relations, state politics, social dynamics and belonging," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Svensson, Jakob & Yanagizawa-Drott, David & Bold, Tessa & Kaizzi, Kayuki, 2015. "Low Quality, Low Returns, Low Adoption: Evidence from the Market for Fertilizer and Hybrid Seed in Uganda," CEPR Discussion Papers 10743, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena, 2023. "Behavioral Aspects of Investment Decisions on Farms," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(3).
    5. Dercon, Stefan & Christiaensen, Luc, 2011. "Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 159-173, November.
    6. Adele Atkinson & Flore-Anne Messy, 2012. "Measuring Financial Literacy: Results of the OECD / International Network on Financial Education (INFE) Pilot Study," OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions 15, OECD Publishing.
    7. Litha Magingxa & Zerihun Alemu & Herman van Schalkwyk, 2009. "Factors influencing access to produce markets for smallholder irrigators in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 47-58.
    8. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    9. Buchan, Nancy R. & Johnson, Eric J. & Croson, Rachel T.A., 2006. "Let's get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 373-398, July.
    10. Hannington Odame & Elijah Muange, 2011. "Can Agro‐dealers Deliver the Green Revolution in Kenya?," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 78-89, July.
    11. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    12. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2014. "The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(1), pages 5-44, March.
    13. Hudon, Marek & Sandberg, Joakim, 2013. "The Ethical Crisis in Microfinance: Issues, Findings, and Implications," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 561-589, October.
    14. Rutsaert, Pieter & Donovan, Jason & Murphy, Mike & Hoffmann, Vivian, 2024. "Farmer decision making for hybrid maize seed purchases: Effects of brand loyalty, price discounts and product information," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    15. Pieter Rutsaert & Jordan Chamberlin & Kevin Ong’are Oluoch & Victor Ochieng Kitoto & Jason Donovan, 2021. "The geography of agricultural input markets in rural Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1379-1391, December.
    16. Singh, R.P. & Morris, Michael L., 1997. "Adoption, Management, and Impact of Hybrid Maize Seed in India," Economics Working Papers 7691, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    17. Mohamed Albaity & Mahfuzur Rahman, 2019. "The intention to use Islamic banking: an exploratory study to measure Islamic financial literacy," International Journal of Emerging Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(5), pages 988-1012, August.
    18. Ephraim Chirwa, 2005. "Adoption of fertiliser and hybrid seeds by smallholder maize farmers in Southern Malawi," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 1-12.
    19. Miller, N. J., 2001. "Contributions of social capital theory in predicting rural community inshopping behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 475-493.
    20. Klapper, Leora & Lusardi, Annamaria & Panos, Georgios A., 2013. "Financial literacy and its consequences: Evidence from Russia during the financial crisis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3904-3923.
    21. Kyle Emerick & Manzoor H. Dar, 2021. "Farmer Field Days and Demonstrator Selection for Increasing Technology Adoption," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(4), pages 680-693, October.
    22. Ulf Liebe & Veronika A. Andorfer & Patricia A. Gwartney & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Ethical Consumption and Social Context: Experimental Evidence from Germany and the United States," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 7, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    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. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    2. Marco Nieddu & Lorenzo Pandolfi, 2018. "Cutting Through the Fog: Financial Literacy and the Subjective Value of Financial Assets," CSEF Working Papers 497, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    3. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    4. Geert Van Campenhout, 2015. "Revaluing the Role of Parents as Financial Socialization Agents in Youth Financial Literacy Programs," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 186-222, March.
    5. Gebremariam, Gebrelibanos & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2018. "The heterogeneous effect of shocks on agricultural innovations adoption: Microeconometric evidence from rural Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 154-161.
    6. Silvia Mariela Méndez-Prado & Vanessa Rodriguez & Kevin Peralta-Rizzo & Patricia Everaert & Martin Valcke, 2023. "An Assessment Tool to Identify the Financial Literacy Level of Financial Education Programs Participants’ Executed by Ecuadorian Financial Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Gin, Xavier & Yang, Dean, 2009. "Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidencefrom Malawi," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Angel, Stefan, 2018. "Smart tools? A randomized controlled trial on the impact of three different media tools on personal finance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 104-111.
    9. Li, Xiao, 2020. "When financial literacy meets textual analysis: A conceptual review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    10. Osvaldo García-Mata & Mariana Zerón-Félix, 2022. "A review of the theoretical foundations of financial well-being," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 145-176, June.
    11. Madeira, Carlos & Margaretic, Paula, 2022. "The impact of financial literacy on the quality of self-reported financial information," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    12. Bettina Greimel-Fuhrmann & Maria Antoinette Silgoner & Rosa Weber, 2015. "Financial literacy gaps of the Austrian population," Monetary Policy & the Economy, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue 2, pages 35-51.
    13. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 383-396.
    14. Barrett,Christopher B. & Sheahan,Megan Britney & Barrett,Christopher B. & Sheahan,Megan Britney, 2014. "Understanding the agricultural input landscape in Sub-Saharan Africa : recent plot, household, and community-level evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7014, The World Bank.
    15. Azra Zaimovic & Anes Torlakovic & Almira Arnaut-Berilo & Tarik Zaimovic & Lejla Dedovic & Minela Nuhic Meskovic, 2023. "Mapping Financial Literacy: A Systematic Literature Review of Determinants and Recent Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-30, June.
    16. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    17. Sergio Longobardi & Margherita Maria Pagliuca & Andrea Regoli, 2018. "Can problem-solving attitudes explain the gender gap in financial literacy? Evidence from Italian students’ data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1677-1705, July.
    18. Guizar-Mateos, Isai & Miranda, Mario J. & Gonzalez-Vega, Claudio, 2013. "The Role of Credit and Deposits in the Dynamics of Technology Decisions and Poverty Traps," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149860, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, "undated". "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    20. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:7:p:2800-:d:1617524. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.