IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v68y2020i3p359-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of customer ratings on consumer choice of fresh produce: A stated preference experiment approach

Author

Listed:
  • Chenyi He
  • Lijia Shi
  • Zhifeng Gao
  • Lisa House

Abstract

The importance of customer ratings or reviews in online shopping has been recognized in the previous literature; however, few have studied how online customer rating scores affect consumers’ fresh produce purchases and its importance relative to other fresh produce attributes. The quality of fresh produce demonstrates high uncertainty and variation; therefore, the impact of user‐generated content such as customer rating scores on the choice of fresh produce may be more complex than on other product categories. Moreover, previous studies on customer ratings have not examined the price premium that retailers can obtain based on better ratings of fresh produce. Using a stated preference approach (i.e., choice experiment), this study measures the willingness to pay for a higher customer rating score and explores its relative importance to other popular fresh produce attributes (i.e., organic, place of origin, and shelf life). The results show that customer rating is the second most important attribute after the place of origin and is more important than production methods (e.g., organic and naturally grown) for fresh strawberry purchases. Also, rating scores demonstrate a diminishing marginal impact on consumer willingness to pay. Younger consumers and households with children are willing to pay more for fresh produce with high ratings than those with low ratings. L'importance des évaluations ou des avis des clients dans les achats en ligne a été reconnue dans la littérature; cependant, peu ont étudié comment les notes des clients en ligne affectent l'achat de produits frais par les consommateurs et son importance par rapport aux autres attributs des produits frais. La qualité des produits frais montre une grande incertitude et variation; par conséquent, l'impact du contenu généré par les utilisateurs, comme les notes des clients sur le choix des produits frais, est possiblement plus complexe que pour d'autres catégories de produits. De plus, les études précédentes sur les évaluations des clients n'ont pas examiné la majoration de prix que les détaillants peuvent obtenir sur la base de meilleures évaluations des produits frais. En utilisant une approche de préférence déclarée (c.‐à‐d. une expérience de choix), cette étude mesure la volonté de payer pour un score de notation client plus élevé et explore son importance relative pour d'autres attributs populaires de produits frais (c.‐à‐d. biologique, lieu d'origine et durée de conservation). Les résultats montrent que l'évaluation des clients est le deuxième attribut le plus important après le lieu d'origine et est plus importante que les méthodes de production (par exemple, biologiques et cultivées naturellement) pour les achats de fraises fraîches. De plus, les scores de notation démontrent un impact marginal décroissant sur la volonté de payer des consommateurs. Les jeunes consommateurs et les ménages avec enfants sont prêts à payer plus pour des produits frais avec des notes élevées que ceux avec des notes basses.

Suggested Citation

  • Chenyi He & Lijia Shi & Zhifeng Gao & Lisa House, 2020. "The impact of customer ratings on consumer choice of fresh produce: A stated preference experiment approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 359-373, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:68:y:2020:i:3:p:359-373
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12222
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12222?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. Lijia Shi & Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "The impact of deal†proneness on WTP estimates in incentive†aligned value elicitation methods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 353-362, May.
    2. Scott J. Savage & Donald M. Waldman, 2008. "Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 351-371.
    3. Junhong Chen & Zhifeng Gao & Xuqi Chen & Lisha Zhang, 2019. "Factors Affecting the Dynamics of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Membership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa & Bi, Xiang, 2016. "Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 26-36.
    6. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    7. Erik Brynjolfsson & Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Michael D. Smith, 2003. "Consumer Surplus in the Digital Economy: Estimating the Value of Increased Product Variety at Online Booksellers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1580-1596, November.
    8. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    9. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2005. "Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-of-Origin Labeling," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    13. Pan, Yue & Zhang, Jason Q., 2011. "Born Unequal: A Study of the Helpfulness of User-Generated Product Reviews," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 598-612.
    14. Lijia Shi & Lisa A. House & Zhifeng Gao, 2013. "Impact of Purchase Intentions on Full and Partial Bids in BDM Auctions: Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 707-718, September.
    15. Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao & Marilyn Swisher & Xin Zhao, 2016. "Consumers’ preferences for fresh broccolis: interactive effects between country of origin and organic labels," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 181-191, March.
    16. Duan, Wenjing & Gu, Bin & Whinston, Andrew B., 2008. "The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales—An empirical investigation of the movie industry," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 233-242.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2003. "Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin Labeling," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    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. Chenyi He & Ruifeng Liu & Zhifeng Gao & Xin Zhao & Charles A. Sims & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2021. "Does local label bias consumer taste buds and preference? Evidence of a strawberry sensory experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 550-568, July.
    2. Lin Bai & Zhanguo Zhu & Tong Zhang, 2021. "How to Improve Food Quality in the Domestic Market: The Role of “Same Line Same Standard Same Quality”—Evidence from a Consumer Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Yanlai Li & Zifan Shen & Cuiming Zhao & Kwai-Sang Chin & Xuwei Lang, 2024. "Understanding Customer Opinion Change on Fresh Food E-Commerce Products and Services—Comparative Analysis before and during COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Zhang, Dianfeng & Shen, Zifan & Li, Yanlai, 2023. "Requirement analysis and service optimization of multiple category fresh products in online retailing using importance-Kano analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Yefan Nian & Zhifeng Gao & Ruojin Zhao, 2023. "Are people's daily life habits consistent with their preference for food sustainability labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 589-622, July.
    6. Xuqi Chen & Yan Heng & Zhifeng Gao & Yuan Jiang, 2022. "Impacts of duo‐regional generic advertising of social media on consumer preference," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 21-44, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Jee-Won Kang & Young Namkung, 2022. "Measuring the Service Quality of Fresh Food Delivery Platforms: Development and Validation of the “Food PlatQual” Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Zhanguo Zhu & Qinyuan Shen & Zhifeng Gao, 2022. "Consumer choices in agricultural markets with multitier collective labels and private brands," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 905-922, October.
    10. 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).

    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. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    4. 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).
    5. Van Asselt, Joanna & Nian, Yefan & Soh, Moonwon & Morgan, Stephen & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Do plastic warning labels reduce consumers' willingness to pay for plastic egg packaging? – Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Yang Hu & Lisa A. House & Brandon R. McFadden & Zhifeng Gao, 2021. "The Influence of Choice Context on Consumers’ Preference for GM Orange Juice," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 547-563, June.
    9. Zaffou, Madiha & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Martin, Jennifer, 2014. "Using a Randomized Choice Experiment to Test Willingness to Pay for Multiple Differentiated Products," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 176910, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    11. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    12. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    13. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    15. Scozzafava, Gabriele & Casini, Leonardo & Marinelli, Nicola, 2012. "Modern Distribution vs. Specialised Shop: a Study on beef consumer behaviour," 2012 XX Convegno Annuale SIEA, Siracusa, Italy 130448, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA).
    16. Sobolewski, Maciej & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2018. "Receiver benefits and strategic use of call externalities in mobile telephony markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 16-27.
    17. Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Olanie, Aaron, 2012. "The Use of Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124891, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    20. Reema Bera & Bhargab Maitra, 2021. "Analyzing Prospective Owners’ Choice Decision towards Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Urban India: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.

    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:bla:canjag:v:68:y:2020:i:3:p:359-373. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.