IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rutdps/36728.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Returns to the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program: The Impacts of Promotional Expenditures on Farm Cash Receipts in New Jersey

Author

Listed:
  • Govindasamy, Ramu
  • Schilling, Brian J.
  • Sullivan, Kevin P.
  • Turvey, Calum G.
  • Brown, Logan
  • Puduri, Venkata S.

Abstract

In 1984, the Jersey Fresh program was implemented by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture and was the first state-funded marketing campaign for agricultural products produced in New Jersey. In an effort to spur demand for New Jersey farm products, this program was designed to increase consumer awareness of the state’s agricultural products as well as to encourage food retailers to promote Jersey Fresh products. With funding from the USDA’s Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture commissioned this study to determine the impact of Jersey Fresh promotion on farmer cash receipts in New Jersey. The econometric analysis was focused on the fruit and vegetable sectors, the primary commodity areas expected to benefit most directly from Jersey Fresh promotion. Study results show that: • For every dollar spent on the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program through 2000, New Jersey’s agricultural fruit and vegetable sector revenues increased by $31.54 (2003 dollars). • The additional economic activity created in the agricultural industry also had impacts on other parts of the economy, namely agricultural suppliers and service providers. In fact, each dollar spent on Jersey Fresh promotion resulted in an additional $22.95 of sales in agricultural support industries and other related industries. • In total, each dollar spent on Jersey Fresh promotion resulted in $54.49 of increased economic output in the State. Adjusting all dollars to 2003 levels, this means that the $1.16 million spent on the Jersey Fresh program in 2000 increased fruit and vegetable cash receipts by $36.6 million and created an additional $26.6 million in economic activity within agricultural support industries. The total statewide economic impact of the Jersey Fresh program was therefore an estimated $63.2 million. The economic activity generated through Jersey Fresh promotion also impacts local, state, and federal taxes. An analysis of these tax impacts shows that New Jersey’s State and local tax revenues increased by $2.2 million in 2000 due to the increased economic activity attributable to Jersey Fresh promotion. Comparing this return to the 2000 program budget of $1.16 million, the Jersey Fresh program appears to be better than revenue-neutral.

Suggested Citation

  • Govindasamy, Ramu & Schilling, Brian J. & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Turvey, Calum G. & Brown, Logan & Puduri, Venkata S., 2004. "Returns to the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program: The Impacts of Promotional Expenditures on Farm Cash Receipts in New Jersey," P Series 36728, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:rutdps:36728
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.36728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/36728/files/pa040406.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kinnucan, Henry W., 1986. "Demographic Versus Media Advertising Effects On Milk Demand: The Case Of The New York City Market," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 1998. "New Varieties And The Returns To Commodity Promotion: Washington Fuji Apples," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20784, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. John M. Halloran & Michael V. Martin, 1989. "Should states be in the agricultural promotion business?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(1), pages 65-75.
    4. Adelaja, Adesoji O. & Brumfield, Robin G. & Lininger, Kimberly, 1990. "Product Differentiation And State Promotion Of Farm Produce: An Analysis Of The Jersey Fresh Tomato," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 21(3), pages 1-14, September.
    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. Hughes, David W. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga, 2015. "The economic impact of farmers’ markets and a state level locally grown campaign," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 78-84.
    2. Carroll, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D. Jr., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Tomatoes: The Influence of Local, Organic, and State Program Promotions by Purchasing Venue," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-18.
    3. Velandia, Margarita & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M. & Davis, James A. & Jensen, Kimberly & Wszelaki, Annette & Wilcox, Michael D., 2014. "Factors Affecting Producer Participation in State-sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Fruit and Vegetable Growers in Tennessee," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 249-265, August.
    4. Carpio, Carlos E. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga, 2009. "Measuring the Potential Economic Impact of a Regional Agricultural Promotion Campaign: The Case of South Carolina," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46729, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Onken, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C. & Pesek, John D., Jr., 2011. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Organic, Natural, Locally Grown, and State Marketing Program Promoted Foods in the Mid-Atlantic Region," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Carlos E. Carpio & Olga Isengildina-Massa, 2009. "Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown products: the case of South Carolina," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 412-426.

    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. Govindasamy, Ramu & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Puduri, Venkata S. & Schilling, Brian J. & Brown, Logan, 2005. "Consumer Awareness of the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program," P Series 36729, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Nganje, William E. & Hughner, Renee Shaw & Lee, Nicholas E., 2011. "State-Branded Programs and Consumer Preference for Locally Grown Produce," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Velandia, Margarita & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M. & Davis, James A. & Jensen, Kimberly & Wszelaki, Annette & Wilcox, Michael D., 2014. "Factors Affecting Producer Participation in State-sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Fruit and Vegetable Growers in Tennessee," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 249-265, August.
    4. Clinton L. Neill & Rodney B. Holcomb & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Estimating potential beggar‐thy‐neighbor effects of state labeling programs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 3-19, January.
    5. Batie, Cicely M. & Dennis, Elliott J. & Lubben, Bradley D., 2020. "Do state-level agricultural promotion programs increase agricultural output? The case of the Livestock Friendly County designation program in Nebraska," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304399, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Henry Kinnucan & Øystein Myrland, 2008. "On generic vs. brand promotion of farm products in foreign markets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 673-684.
    7. Richards, Timothy J. & Padilla, Luis, 2002. "Commodity R&D And Promotion," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Ilaslan, Gunes & White, Gerald B. & Langhans, Robert W., 2002. "Insights Into the Economic Viability of a New CEA System Producing Hydroponic Lettuce," Staff Papers 121122, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    9. Xiao, Hui & Kinnucan, Henry W. & Kaiser, Harry M., 1998. "Advertising, Structural Change, And U.S. Non-Alcoholic Beverage Demand," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20885, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Chung, Chanjin & Kaiser, Harry M., 1998. "Determinants of Temporal Variations in Advertising Effectiveness," Research Bulletins 122689, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    11. Toan Ngoc Nguyen, 2020. "The Determinants of an Econometric Demand Model for Beverages," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 383-394.
    12. Paul M. Patterson & Timothy J. Burkink & Rozlyn S. Lipsey & Jason Lipsey & Richard W. Roth & Mary Kay Martin, 2003. "Targeting tourists with state branding programs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 525-538.
    13. Pritchett, James G. & Liu, Donald J. & Kaiser, Harry M., 1998. "Optimal Choice Of Generic Milk Advertising Expenditures By Media Outlet," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Gvillo, Rejeana & Capps, Oral, Jr. & Dharmasena, Senarath, 2014. "Dynamics of Advertising and Demand for Fluid Milk in the United States: An Incomplete Demand Approach," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170265, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Jekanowski, Mark D. & Williams, Daniel R., II & Schiek, William A., 2000. "Consumers' Willingness To Purchase Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An Analysis Of An Indiana Survey," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11, April.
    16. Goddard, E.W. & Tielu, A., 1987. "The OMMB'S Fluid Milk Advertising," Working Papers 244815, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. John Lenz & Harry M. Kaiser & Chanjin Chung, 1998. "Economic analysis of generic milk advertising impacts on markets in New York State," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 73-83.
    18. Paul M. Patterson & Hans Olofsson & Timothy J. Richards & Sharon Sass, 1999. "An empirical analysis of state agricultural product promotions: A case study on Arizona Grown," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 179-196.
    19. Chanjin Chung & Harry M. Kaiser, 2000. "Determinants of temporal variations in generic advertising effectiveness," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 197-214.
    20. Hanagriff, Roger D. & Lau, Michael H. & Rogers, Sarah L., 2008. "State Funded Marketing and Promotional Activities to Support a State's Winery Business; Are There Economic Returns? A Case study using Texas Senate Bill 1370's support of the Texas Wine Industry," Working Papers 44088, American Association of Wine Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Marketing;

    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:rutdps:36728. 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). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/darutus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.