IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v46y2014i02p193-208_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Biggest Bang for the Buck: Valuation of Various Components of a Regional Promotion Campaign by Participating Restaurants

Author

Listed:
  • Xie, Ran
  • Isengildina-Massa, Olga
  • Carpio, Carlos E.

Abstract

This study examined how various components of the Certified South Carolina campaign are valued by participating restaurants. A choice experiment was conducted to estimate the average willingness to pay (WTP) for each campaign component using a mixed logit model. Three existing campaign components—Labeling, Multimedia Advertising, and the “Fresh on the Menu” program—were found to have a significant positive economic value. Results also revealed that the type of restaurant, the level of satisfaction with the campaign, and the factors motivating participation significantly affected restaurants' WTP for the campaign components.

Suggested Citation

  • Xie, Ran & Isengildina-Massa, Olga & Carpio, Carlos E., 2014. "The Biggest Bang for the Buck: Valuation of Various Components of a Regional Promotion Campaign by Participating Restaurants," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 193-208, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:46:y:2014:i:02:p:193-208_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800000730/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. 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.
    4. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    6. Onken, Kathryn A. & Bernard, John C., 2010. "Catching the "Local" Bug: A Look at State Agricultural Marketing Programs," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-7.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    8. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E. & Isengildina-Massa, Olga & Lamie, R. Dave, 2011. "Do Internet-Based Promotion Efforts Work? Evaluating MarketMaker," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 29(1).
    9. Patterson, Paul M., 2006. "State-Grown Promotion Programs: Fresher, Better?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-6.
    10. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053, September.
    11. Bhat, Chandra R., 1994. "Imputing a continuous income variable from grouped and missing income observations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 311-319, December.
    12. Gro Steine & Kari Kolstad, 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1050-1061.
    13. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    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. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Ben Campbell & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall, 2018. "How do consumer perceptions of “local†production benefits influence their visual attention to state marketing programs?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 390-406, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    6. Carpio, Carlos E. & Mathews, Leah G. & Boonsaeng, Tullaya & Perrett, Allison & Descieux, Katie, 2015. "Evaluating the Marketing Impact of a Regional Branding Program Using Contingent Valuation Methods: The Case of the Appalachian Grown™ Branding Program," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205800, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    8. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    10. 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.
    11. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Lu Chen & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, September.
    14. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    15. Collart, Alba J. & Palma, Marco A. & Carpio, Carlos E., 2013. "Consumer Response to Point of Purchase Advertising for Local Brands," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 229-242, May.
    16. Hudson, Darren & Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Hanson, Terrill R., 2012. "A Comparison Of Choice Experiments And Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application To Seafood Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-14, February.
    17. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    18. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    20. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C40 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - General
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • M38 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    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:cup:jagaec:v:46:y:2014:i:02:p:193-208_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.