IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Preissetzung Auf Dem Deutschen Joghurtmarkt: Eine Hedonische Analyse

  • Empen, Janine
Registered author(s):

    Die Produktkategorie Joghurt gilt als hoch differenziert. In Deutschland sind über 2000 verschiedene Joghurts in mehr als 250 Produktlinien (z.B. „Almighurt“ von Ehrmann) auf dem Markt erhältlich. Während fast alle Hersteller über ein breites Geschmackssortiment verfügen, ist die Produktion speziellerer Varianten, wie z.B. probiotische oder laktosefreie Joghurts auf wenige, internationale Konzerne oder Nischenmolkereien konzentriert. In diesem Beitrag wird analysiert, inwieweit die Preisgestaltung bei Joghurt anhand der Produkteigenschaften erklärt werden kann und welche Produktattribute von den Marktteilnehmern mit besonders hohen Preisaufschlägen bewertet werden. Dazu wird ein hedonisches Preismodell auf der Basis von Einzelhandelsscannerdaten, welche von 2005 bis 2008 in über 500 Geschäften aus ganz Deutschland wöchentlich erhoben wurden, geschätzt. Als Produktcharakteristika werden sowohl Eigenschaften berücksichtigt, die innerhalb einer Produktlinie variieren (Geschmacksrichtungen), als auch solche, die Produktlinien untereinander abgrenzen (Fettstufen, Verpackungsarten, Markenzugehörigkeit, spezielle Eigenschaften). Insgesamt kann 74 % der Preisvariation durch diese Produktattribute erklärt werden. Der Trend zu einer gesundheitsbewussteren Ernährung spiegelt sich in den Ergebnissen sehr deutlich wider. Probiotische (laktosefreie) Joghurts sind auf Einzelhandelsebene im Durchschnitt rund 15 % (67 %) teurer als naturbelassene Vollfettvarianten. Magerjoghurts (0,1 – 1,4 % Fett) können gegenüber den fettarmen Joghurts (1,5 – 3,4 % Fett) trotz niedrigerer Rohstoffkosten denselben impliziten Preis erzielen. Zudem spielt die Markenzugehörigkeit in der Preissetzung eine wichtige Rolle. Aus den Ergebnissen werden auch Implikationen für die milchverarbeitende Industrie abgeleitet. The yoghurt market shows a high degree of differentiation, innovations are launched on a frequent basis. In Germany, consumers can choose between more than 2000 different varieties. Whereas most manufacturers offer a wide assortment of different flavors, the production of specialties as e.g. probiotic or lactose-free yoghurts is concentrated on multinational food corporations or niche manufacturers. In this study, the question is addressed whether variations in yoghurt prices can be attributed to product characteristics. Furthermore, product attributes leading to particularly high price premiums are identified. We adopt a hedonic price model und use retail scanner data, which was collected from 2005 to 2008 in over 500 retail stores throughout Germany. Employing flavor, fat content, package type, brand name and special variations (probiotic, lactose-free and organic) as product characteristics, up to 74 % of the observed price variation can be explained. Yoghurts being lactose-free realize price premiums up to 67 % at the retail level and also yoghurts being perceived as healthy (low-fat and probiotic) are more expensive than pure full-fat yoghurts. Implications for the milk processing industry are also being discussed.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/115362
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA) in its series 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 with number 115362.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi11:115362
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig
    Phone: 0531 / 596 5501
    Fax: 0531 / 596 5599
    Web page: http://www.gewisola.de/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Stephen Sheppard, 1998. "Hedonic Analysis of Housing Markets," Urban/Regional 9805001, EconWPA.
    2. W. Erwin Diewert, 2003. "Hedonic Regressions. A Consumer Theory Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Scanner Data and Price Indexes, pages 317-348 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Halvorsen, Robert & Palmquist, Raymond, 1980. "The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 474-75, June.
    4. Jack Triplett, 2004. "Handbook on Hedonic Indexes and Quality Adjustments in Price Indexes: Special Application to Information Technology Products," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2004/9, OECD Publishing.
    5. Nerlove, Marc, 1995. "Hedonic price functions and the measurement of preferences: The case of Swedish wine consumers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1697-1716, December.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
    7. Michaela Draganska & Dipak C. Jain, 2006. "Consumer Preferences and Product-Line Pricing Strategies: An Empirical Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 164-174, 03-04.
    8. 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..
    9. Edward Oczkowski, 1994. "A Hedonic Price Function For Australian Premium Table Wine," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 93-110, 04.
    10. Jaehwan Kim & Greg M. Allenby & Peter E. Rossi, 2002. "Modeling Consumer Demand for Variety," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 229-250, December.
    11. Kenneth E. McConnell & Ivar E. Strand, 2000. "Hedonic Prices for Fish: Tuna Prices in Hawaii," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(1), pages 133-144.
    12. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2010. "The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gewi11:115362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.