IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rutdps/36731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Producer Response to State-Sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Jersey Fresh

Author

Listed:
  • Govindasamy, Ramu
  • Pingali, Aruna
  • Italia, John
  • Thatch, Daymon W.

Abstract

New Jersey agricultural growers were surveyed to understand their willingness to patronize the Jersey Fresh promotional and quality grading program. Growers’ perceptions of the premium logo and their opinions of the quality grading aspect of the Jersey Fresh Program were collected. Possible causes for the fluctuating participation of farmers in the quality-grading program were also explored. The results of this study should provide valuable information that can be applied not only to expand the Jersey Fresh Program, but also in other states which have similar promotional programs. Specific objectives of this analysis were to examine the general attitudes of participating farmers towards the effectiveness of the Jersey Fresh Logos and to identify the characteristics of farmers participating or interested in participating in the Jersey Fresh Promotional and Quality Grading Programs. Of the farmers who responded, 93.1% indicated that they were aware of the Jersey Fresh Program and 51.4% indicated that they did use the Jersey Fresh Logos. Over three-quarters of the farmers (76.4%) were of the opinion that the logos had a medium to high awareness among consumers. The majority of farmers indicated that the most important reason for using the Jersey Fresh Logos was to add locally grown value (46.9%) and freshness value to their produce (26.6%). Farmers who believed that consumer awareness of the Jersey Fresh Logos was high and who used logos other than Jersey Fresh were found to be more likely to have used the Jersey Fresh Logos and also more likely to use them in the future. Farmers with high gross sales of produce and with higher levels of education were found more likely to have used the Jersey Fresh Logos and also more likely to use the logos in the future. The number of acres being farmed and the age of the farmers, however, were found to have a negative effect on both the current usage and willingness to use the logos in the future. v Growers with farms located in the southern New Jersey were found more likely to be Jersey Fresh participants and also more willing to use Jersey Fresh Logos in the future, compared to farmers in the central or northern regions of the state. Farmers who believed that consumers were highly aware of the program and those who used other logos to identify their quality fresh produce were more likely to be registered in the Jersey Fresh Quality Grading Program. Growers with farms in southern New Jersey and who had more than a four year college education were also found to be more likely to be registered in the Quality Grading Program. Among the most cited reasons for not participating in the program were not wanting their produce to be inspected, not knowing about the program, and not finding the grading logo to be effective in obtaining a premium price.

Suggested Citation

  • Govindasamy, Ramu & Pingali, Aruna & Italia, John & Thatch, Daymon W., 1998. "Producer Response to State-Sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Jersey Fresh," P Series 36731, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rutdps:36731
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.36731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/36731/files/pa980398.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.36731?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. Lopez, Rigoberto A. & Pagoulatos, Emilio & Polopolus, Leo C., 1989. "Constraints And Opportunities In Vegetable Trade," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Blisard, William N. & Blaylock, James R., 1989. "Generic Promotion of Agricultural Products: Balancing Producers' and Consumers' Needs," Agricultural Information Bulletins 309492, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, December.
    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. 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.

    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 & Pingali, Aruna & Italia, John & Thatch, Daymon W., 1998. "Retailer-Wholesaler Response to State-Sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Jersey Fresh," P Series 36732, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Govindasamy, Ramu & Pingali, Aruna & Italia, John & Thatch, Daymon W., 1998. "Consumer Response to State-Sponsored Marketing Programs: The Case of Jersey Fresh," P Series 36730, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Jinsuk Yang & Qing Hao & Mahmut Yaşar, 2023. "Institutional investors and cross‐border mergers and acquisitions: The 2000–2018 period," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 553-583, September.
    4. Styan, Jacob & Boerngen, Maria A. & Barrowclough, Michael J., 2021. "Factors Influencing Increased Usage of Cash Rent Leases in Illinois," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2021.
    5. Jason Barabas, 1998. "Wage Erosion, Economic Assessments, and Social Welfare Opinions," JCPR Working Papers 56, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    6. repec:kap:iaecre:v:17:y:2011:i:2:p:157-168 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. David M. Brasington & Diane Hite, 2005. "Demand for Environmental Quality: A Spatial Hedonic Approach," Departmental Working Papers 2005-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    8. Yakubu, Ibrahim Nandom, 2022. "Exploring the Drivers of Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Interactive Effect of Globalization and Financial Development," MPRA Paper 115230, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Berna Karali & Scott H. Irwin & Olga Isengildina‐Massa, 2020. "Supply Fundamentals and Grain Futures Price Movements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 548-568, March.
    10. Carlberg, Jared G., 2002. "Effects Of Ownership Restrictions On Farmland Values In Saskatchewan," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-10, August.
    11. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    12. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    13. Liv Osland & Inge Thorsen, 2013. "Spatial Impacts, Local Labour Market Characteristics and Housing Prices," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(10), pages 2063-2083, August.
    14. Kim, Tae-Hun, 2008. "The measurement of farmers' risk attitudes using a non-structural approach," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 31(2), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Subramanian Rangan & Metin Sengul, 2009. "Information technology and transnational integration: Theory and evidence on the evolution of the modern multinational enterprise," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(9), pages 1496-1514, December.
    16. Senderski, Marcin, 2011. "Justifiable thrift or feverish animal spirits: What stirred the corporate credit crunch in Poland?," MPRA Paper 56613, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. David Pottebaum & Ravi Kanbur, 2004. "Civil war, public goods and the social wealth of nations," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 459-484.
    18. Gediminas Adomavicius & Jesse Bockstedt & Alok Gupta, 2012. "Modeling Supply-Side Dynamics of IT Components, Products, and Infrastructure: An Empirical Analysis Using Vector Autoregression," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 397-417, June.
    19. Thomas H.W. ZIESEMER, 2012. "Worker remittances and government behaviour in the receiving countries," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 3, pages 37-59, December.
    20. Krzyżanowski, Julian T., 2017. "The Standard Model of Trade and the Marshall – Lerner Condition," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 17(32, Part ), December.
    21. Torstein Bye & Alexandra Katz, 1995. "Returns to Publicly Owned Transport Infrastructure Investment . A Cost Function/Cost Share Approach for Norway, 1971-1991," Discussion Papers 154, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    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:36731. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/darutus.html .

    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.