Consumer Preferences

Complete Consumer Preferences document for downloading. PDF Format
Consumer Preferences for
     Northeastern Aquaculture Products
       Report on the Results from a Survey of
         Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Consumers

Cathy R. Wessells, University of Rhode Island
Sophia F. Morse, University of Rhode Island
Alberto Manalo, University of New Hampshire
Conrado M. Gempesaw II, University of Delaware

December 1994
Rhode Island Experiment Station Publication No. 3100

Table of Contents
List of Figures List of Tables
- Introduction
- Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents
- Consumption Patterns
  - A. Seafood Consumption Patterns
  - B. FinFish Consumption Patterns
    - I Salmon
    - II. Trout
    - III. Hybrid Striped Bass
    - IV. Tilapia
  - C. Shellfish Consumption Patterns
    - I. Mussels
    - II. Clams
    - III. Oysters
- Consumer Attitudes and Beliefs about Seafood
  - A. Quality and Safety of Seafood
    - I. Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Seafood
    - II. Exposure to Seafood Stories in the News Media
    - III. Safety Perception of Fish and Shellfish Relative to Other Types of Food
  - B. Comparison of Aquacultured Products versus Wild Harvested Products
    - I Awareness of Aquacultured Products
    - II. Safety Perceptions of Aquacultured and Wild-Harvested Fish and Shellfish
    - III. Preferences for Quality Inspected Products
- Conclusions and Implications for Marketing of Northeastern Aquacultured Products
Appendix A: Finfish Survey
Appendix B: Shellfish Survey

Introduction
The major products in the Northeastern aquaculture industry are oysters, salmon, hard clams and trout. Other species grown in the region include hybrid striped bass, tilapia and mussels. Total production has grown to an estimated farmgate value of$146.4 million in 1992.

Northeastern aquaculture producers have faced, and continue to face, challenges of foreign and domestic competition in the U.S. market for their products. Given current and projected future supplies, increases in revenues to producers for aquaculture seafood products must be generated within the marketplace. One way to affect prices received is to increase demand for the product. However, in order to increase demand it is first necessary to obtain a better understanding of the factors which drive demand.

One of the objectives of the research project, 'Alternative Marketing Options to Improve Profitability of the Northeast Aquaculture Industry,' was to generate information regarding consumer preferences for and consumption of Northeastern aquaculture products. Targeted information includes perceptions of the relative quality and safety of farmed products as opposed to wild harvested products. To achieve these objectives, Dr. See Bush, M. and J.L. Anderson. 1993. "Northeast Region Aquaculture Industry Situation and Outlook Report," Department of Resource Economics, Cooperative Extension Service Report, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881. Wessells at the University of Rhode Island, Dr. Manalo at the University of New Hampshire, and Dr. Gempesaw at the University of Delaware developed and administered a consumer survey.

The goals of the consumer survey are to provide information in three areas. First, information on general seafood consumption patterns, as well as species specific consumption patterns, by households in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions was targeted. As many of the Northeastern aquaculture products as possible are included in the consumer survey to provide useful information to the broadest spectrum of aquaculture producers in the Northeastern region. Second, consumers' beliefs regarding the relative safety of the general seafood supply are explored. Third, consumers' beliefs of the relative quality and safety of aquacultured products versus wild-harvested products are identified. By gathering data in the above three areas, together with demographic characteristics of households, this report uncovers many facets of households' seafood consumption patterns and consumers' perceptions regarding the quality of seafood in general, with aquacultured product in particular, which have not previously been captured.

Drafts of the consumer surveys included a survey with questions regarding seven different species. Through pre-testing it became apparent that too much detail in a single survey is difficult and frustrating for a respondents. This also limits the likelihood that a potential respondent will actually respond because of the length of the survey. Therefore, after extensive pre-testing, two comprehensive consumer surveys were developed; one which focused on finfish species (see appendix A), the other on shellfish species (see appendix B). The shellfish survey contains questions specific to consumer perceptions and purchasing behavior of mussels, clams and oysters. The finfish survey contains similar questions for salmon, trout, tilapia and hybrid striped bass. In all cases, fresh product for home preparation and consumption was targeted, excluding breaded, canned and products otherwise prepared.' Questions asked in the two surveys deliberately overlap in some areas. For example, both surveys asked questions regarding overall seafood consumption. In addition, both surveys contain identical questions regarding the demographic characteristics of the respondents. For the most part, however, the questions were either species specific or specific to finfish or shellfish as groups, depending on the survey.

In order to reach the largest group of potential respondents within the budget constraints of this sub-project, a mail survey was chosen as opposed to the more expensive telephone and in-person survey techniques. Although a survey of consumers across the U.S. would have been of great interest to the researchers, and undoubtedly to the industry, budget constraints limited survey distribution to the Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantlc regions. thousand surveys were mailed; 5,000 shellfish Restaurant and supermarket purchasing behavior is being investigated by other researchers under the umbrella project. surveys and 5,000 finfish surveys.

The surveys were sent to random households from a list generated by a private list service firm in Delaware. The random households were dispersed across states according to the state's share of the total population for the region. The states included were: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Surveying began in April 1993 with a personalized, hand-signed letter sent to each household informing them of the impending arrival of the survey, stating the importance of responding to the survey, and thanking the household for their cooperation. This was followed a week later by the survey and an accompanying letter. The letter accompanying this survey asked that the individual in the household who is chiefly responsible for the retail purchase of seafood for home consumption complete the survey. A week later a postcard was sent to remind households to complete and return the survey. Two weeks later a follow-up survey was sent, followed again by a reminder postcard. All returns were received by August 1993.

The survey results appear to represent a random sample population. The sampling procedure outlined above resulted in a nearly identical return of 1,533 shellfish surveys and 1,529 finfish surveys; each survey achieved virtually the same 30% response rate. In addition, discussed more fully in the following chapter, the demographic characteristics of the two samples are almost identical.

The remainder of this report presents results from this survey. In Chapter 2 a demographic and socioeconomic profile of the respondents to the two surveys is presented. Chapter 3 reports on the results of questions pertaining to the consumption patterns of the respondents of seafood in general, followed by results from questions specific to the finfish and shellfish species listed above. Chapter 4 presents the respondents' beliefs about the quality of seafood and aquacultured seafood in particular. Chapter 5 presents conclusions and implications of these results for marketing Northeastern aquaculture products.