IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

  • Govindasamy, Ramu
  • Schilling, Brian J.
  • Sullivan, Kevin P.
  • Turvey, Calum G.
  • Brown, Logan
  • Puduri, Venkata S.
Registered author(s):

    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.

    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:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics in its series P Series with number 36728.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 2004
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:rutdps:36728
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Cook Office Building, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
    Phone: (732) 932-9155
    Fax: (732) 932-1100
    Web page:

    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. 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), April.
    2. Richards, Timothy J. & Patterson, Paul M., 1998. "New Varieties and the Returns to Commodity Promotion: Washington Fuji Apples," Working Papers 28541, Arizona State University, Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management.
    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), September.
    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: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)

    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.