IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v34y2018i2p163-189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using labeled choice experiments to analyze demand structure and market position among seafood products

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen Tien Thong
  • Hans Stubbe Solgaard
  • Wolfgang Haider
  • Eva Roth
  • Lars Ravn†Jonsen

Abstract

Understanding market competition and consumer preferences are important first steps in developing a business. In a competitive market, the effectiveness of the various elements of a firm's marketing mix depends not only on the absolute value of each element but also on the relative values of the elements with respect to the firm's position in the market. In this paper, we analyze the demand structure and market positions of a variety of seafood products in the French retail market. We used a labeled choice experiment to analyze 12 seafood species. The choice options were labeled by the names of the seafood, providing researchers the opportunity to analyze the competitive interactions among the species. Competitive clout and vulnerability measures were estimated for each species as summary measures of species competition. These measures were calculated from cross†and own†elasticities and reveal that salmon and cod have the strongest market position, while monkfish and pangasius have the weakest. In general, the demand for seafood is moderately sensitive to price (market elasticity of −1.31). Large size and low†income households, female consumers, people in the age range 35–44 years, and self†employed consumers are the most sensitive to price. Four segments were identified and described in terms of both consumer characteristics and preferences. Our results are meaningful for producers and retailers to develop marketing strategies and production plans. [EconLit citations: D12, M21, Q13].

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen Tien Thong & Hans Stubbe Solgaard & Wolfgang Haider & Eva Roth & Lars Ravn†Jonsen, 2018. "Using labeled choice experiments to analyze demand structure and market position among seafood products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 163-189, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:163-189
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21504
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21504?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. K. Sudhir, 2001. "Competitive Pricing Behavior in the Auto Market: A Structural Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 42-60, January.
    2. P. Seetharaman & Siddhartha Chib & Andrew Ainslie & Peter Boatwright & Tat Chan & Sachin Gupta & Nitin Mehta & Vithala Rao & Andrei Strijnev, 2005. "Models of Multi-Category Choice Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 239-254, December.
    3. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Harikesh S. Nair, 2011. "Structural Workshop Paper --Discrete-Choice Models of Consumer Demand in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 977-996, November.
    4. Rao, Vithala R, 1984. "Pricing Research in Marketing: The State of the Art," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 39-60, January.
    5. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
    6. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, December.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, July.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    13. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    14. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    15. Hsiang-tai Cheng & Oral Capps, 1988. "Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 533-542.
    16. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    17. K. Sudhir, 2001. "Competitive Pricing Behavior in the US Auto Market: A Structural Analysis," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm228, Yale School of Management.
    18. Jaffry, Shabbar & Pickering, Helen & Ghulam, Yaseen & Whitmarsh, David & Wattage, Prem, 2004. "Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 215-228, June.
    19. Dan Horsky & Sanjog Misra & Paul Nelson, 2006. "Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 322-335, 07-08.
    20. Natter, Martin & Feurstein, Markus, 2002. "Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 448-458, March.
    21. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    22. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Joffre D. Swait, 2013. "Are Food Choices Really Habitual? Integrating Habits, Variety-seeking, and Compensatory Choice in a Utility-maximizing Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(1), pages 17-41.
    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. Konrad, Renata A. & Saeed, Khalid & Kammer-Kerwick, Matt & Busaranuvong, Palawat & Khumwang, Wai, 2023. "“Fish-y” banks: Using system dynamics to evaluate policy interventions for reducing labor exploitation in the seafood industry," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L. & House, Lisa A., 2022. "The Impacts of Covid-19 on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Information Transparency at Casual and Fine Dining Restaurants," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322463, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. James Hilger & Eric Hallstein & Andrew W. Stevens & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2019. "Measuring Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes in Seafood," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 307-332, May.
    3. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    4. Sungho Park & Sachin Gupta, 2012. "Comparison of SML and GMM estimators for the random coefficient logit model using aggregate data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 1353-1372, December.
    5. Hilger, James & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2008. "The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9v17r715, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    6. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    7. Badruddoza, Syed & Amin, Modhurima & McCluskey, Jill, 2019. "Assessing the Importance of an Attribute in a Demand SystemStructural Model versus Machine Learning," Working Papers 2019-5, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    8. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M. & Hamilton, Stephen F., 2007. "Fast Food, Addiction, and Market Power," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Bonnet, Céline & Richards, Timothy J., 2016. "Models of Consumer Demand for Differentiated Products," TSE Working Papers 16-741, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    10. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    11. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Taylor, Rebecca & Krovetz, Hannah, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Low Water Footprint Food Choices During Drought," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9vh3x180, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    12. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    13. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(01), March.
    14. Qi Wang & Huazhong Zhao & Jinhong Xie, 2016. "Intra-Standard Competition: The Joint Impact of an Installed-User Base and a Supporting-Firm Base in Markets with Network Effects," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 3(3), pages 159-174, December.
    15. Gian Maria Tomat, 2005. "Prices, Product Differentiation And Quality Measurement: A Comparison Between Hedonic And Matched Model Methods," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 547, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    16. Daniel McFadden, 2014. "The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 2, pages 7-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    18. Sergio Meza & K. Sudhir, 2010. "Do private labels increase retailer bargaining power?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 333-363, September.
    19. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2011. "Advances in Discrete Choice: Mixture Models," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    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:wly:agribz:v:34:y:2018:i:2:p:163-189. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.