leaders in local: exploring consumers‘ purchase intentions of locally produced foods

Leaders in Local: Exploring Consumers‘ Purchase Intentions of

Locally Produced Foods

Dr Gary MortimerQUT Business School |Z1058 - Queensland University of Technology |

www.qut.edu.au/businessPhone: + 61 7 3138 5084 | Mb: 0448 048 433 | Fax: +61 7 3138 1811 |

Email: [email protected] | CRICOS No. 00213J

http://www.qut.edu.au/business

mailto:[email protected]

2

Table of contents

• Project Background 3• Methodology 6• Sample Demographics 7• Construct Validity 8• Determining Local Food – Description 11• Determining Local Food – Geographic, Size of Business and Location of Business 14• Determining Local Food – Product Features 29• Ethnocentrism 37• Attitudes: Benefits of Buying Local 46• Attitudes: Supporting Local and Small Business 59• Awareness 80• Subjective Norms 87• Connectedness 94• Intentions to Purchase 101• Importance of ‘Local’ across Categories 108• Factors that Influence the Purchase of Local Foods 115• Conclusion and Summary 141

3

Project Background

• Local foods are growing in importance in the mind set of the consumer – “the new organic” (McKenzie-Minifie, 2007)

• Consumers are becoming more active in choosing alternative channels to purchase locally grown/produced foods– Growth of farmer’s markets, roadside stalls, community gardens and *CSA programs

• Supermarkets and grocers continue to tailor their assortments to include, ethnic, organic, natural and local foods to meet changing consumer needs

• Australian research is limited, although one early study has found ‘buying locally produced foods’ was considered an important attribute (Lea & Worsley, 2007)

• International research has tended to focus on COO effects, rather than region or local effects. (Insch & Florek, 2009)

• Emerging research is beginning to explore consumer interest in ‘local’ over simply ‘domestic’ – although not specifically in food. (Hustvedt, Carroll & Bernard, 2013)

• One study has examined differences in attitudes, subjective norms and intentions toward the purchase of locally produced foods. (Campbell, 2013)

4

What do we know?

• There is a continuing push to ‘buy local’ – governments, interest groups, etc

• Growth in Farmers (alternative) Fresh Food Markets (www.daff.gov.au)

– Doubling 2004 to 2011 to 150 nationally– 69% of markets reported increased stall holders– 64% of markets reported increased shopper numbers

• Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies (CET) has been used to explain consumer behaviour towards local products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987)– Ethnocentricity describes consumers who feel strongly about purchasing product from within the country or region.

• Consumers are willing to pay (WTP) more for locally produced/grown foods (Darby, Bette, Ernst & Roe, 2008)

• Consumers express a preference for locally produced/grown foods (Onken, Bernard & Pesek, 2011)

5

What remains unclear?

• What is ‘local’ in the mind of the shopper? • Is it regionally bound or state bound? (Patterson et al., 1999; Darby et al. 2008)

• Do differences between genders, education and generational cohorts on local food purchase intentions exist?• If they do, who should we be marketing to?• Creating one marketing message may be futile.

• What salient factors influence the purchase of locally produced foods? • How do we best market ‘local’?

• Do we focus on the ‘social family-friendly aspect (subjective norms) to connect with customers? Or, promotions and loyalty programs?

• To what extent is ‘local’ and important attribute across categories?• Strategically, should product placement/layouts be adjusted to facilitate a ‘local’ message?

6

Methodology

• An online survey questionnaire was distributed to 1065 respondents that reported to be the ‘primary grocery shopper’.

• Respondents were EDR Card shoppers• The survey questionnaire screened and removed those respondents under the age

of 18 years.• The online survey questionnaire was operationalised to ensure all responses were

required before progressing, this aided in cleaning the data. • Data was exported to Excel for cleaning and then to SPSS Version 18 for analysis.

• Analysis included descriptive, frequencies, t-tests, Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) and Multiple Regression

GENDERFemale 72%Male 28%

AGE18-24 yrs: 1%25-35 yrs: 16%36-45 yrs: 17%46-55 yrs: 20%56-65 yrs: 23%65+ yrs: 23%

LEVEL OF EDUCATIONHigh School/Secondary 33%TAFE/Trade Certificate 29%Undergraduate 19%Postgraduate 19%

RELATIONSHIP STATUSSingle/Living alone 12%Married/De facto/ 77%Living togetherSeparated/Divorced 8% Widowed 3%

HOUSEHOLD TYPENo kids 59%Have kids all the time 37%Have kids some of the time 5%

Source: QUT Local product shopping behaviour study, (June 2013)Base: All respondents who have purchased local products (n= 1,065).

Grocery shopper profile (%) respondent

Sample Demographics

Construct ValidationConstruct Items Cronbachs’

Alpha

Attitudes-Benefits of

Buying Local

1. Locally produced products are better for the environment.2. By buying locally I am supporting the Australian economy.3. It is important to support our local farmers and local business community.4. I am worried that local farms are going out of business because most food purchased in supermarkets is grown on larger farms across Australia.

0.66

Attitudes-Supporting local and

small business

1. The government do not provide much support to Australian farmers.2. The farming sector in Australia is suffering great hardship at the current time.3. Australian farmers deserve greater support from the large supermarket chains.4. Australian farmers deserve greater support from the government.5. The supermarket chains do not provide much support to Australian farmers.

0.87

Construct Validity: Constructs are developed from multiple items to ensure a robust measure is defined. Constructs should produce a Cronbachs’ Alpha of over .60 to be considered valid.

Construct Validation

Construct Items Cronbachs’ Alpha

Subjective norms

1. Friends think I should buy locally produced foods.2. People who are important to me think I should buy locally produced foods.3. People who influence my buying behaviour think I should buy locally produced foods.4. My family thinks I should buy locally produced foods.

0.92

Connectedness 1. When I buy locally produced foods I feel like I connect with the community.2. When I buy locally produced foods I feel like I connect with the producer.3. When I buy locally produced foods from a supermarket I feel more favourable towards them.

0.87


10


Construct Items Cronbachs’ Alpha

Ethnocentrism 1. Australians should always buy Australian products instead of imports.2. We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our own country.3. Only those products that are unavailable in Australia should be imported.4. Curbs should be put on all imports.5. Buy Australian-made products. Keep Australia working.6. A real Australians should always buy Australian-made products.7. Australian products, first, last and foremost.8. Purchasing foreign products is un-Australian.9. Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into Australia.10. It is not right to purchase foreign products, because it puts Australian out of jobs.11. We should purchase products manufactured in Australia instead of letting other countries get rich off us.12. Australians should not buy foreign products, because this hurts Australian business and causes unemployment.13. It is always best to purchase Australian products.14. Australian consumers who purchase products in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow Australians out of work.15. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets.16. There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other countries unless out of necessary.17. It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support Australian products.

0.95


11

Determining ‘Local’ Food

• There is no legal stipulation of what constitutes ‘local food’, nor is there a widely accepted definition (Jones et al., 2004; Feagan, 2007).

• The most commonly used approach defines ‘local food’ on the basis of the distance that the food travels from production to consumption. Distances vary between 30 miles (as used for Certified Farmer’s Markets, UK) and 100 miles (US).

• Other descriptors include within a county (i.e.“Direct from Dorset” where Dorset is one of the 70 or so well recognised counties in the UK) or region (i.e. South East Qld) or sub-region (Sunshine Coast Hinterland, Qld)

• Other groups have developed different approaches to describing the notion of ‘local food’ (i.e. Soil Association in the UK) considered ‘local food’ as a process, or aspiration, encouraging steps towards shortening the food supply chain.

Pearson, D., Henryks, J., Trott, A., Jones, P., Parker, G., Dumaresq, D. & Dyball, R. (2011)

12


• A complication for ‘local food’ emerges with processed and multi-ingredient products. This raises the question of what percentage of all the ingredients and/or processing needs to be deemed ‘local’ for the final product to maintain its status as a local food.

• Clarity surrounding what constitutes local food presents major difficulties, the most obvious of which is that the actual size of the ‘local food’ market is difficult to determine.

• UK market size;– Using a purely geographic definition (i.e. food that is sold within 30 miles of where it is produced) the

local food market has been estimated at around 1.5 per cent of the total food market (Brown & Geldard, 2008).

– Using a broader geographic definition, such as food produced and consumed within a region, the local food market is much larger, with an estimate published in 2003 suggesting that it was around 6 per cent of the total food market (Defra, 2003).

13


• Considering the discord around a widely accepted definition of ‘local food’, this project captured responses from 1065 respondents on the following measures;

• A determination of ‘local food’ based on; – Geographic nature of local food– Size of enterprise– Nature of business and location– Product features

14

Determining Local - GeographicWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food

and grocery, how would you describe local?

88%

57%

29%

73%

6-7 scale responses (%) of 1065 grocery shoppers

region/town or city

state

Australia

100 km of my region/town or city

Determining Local-GeographicWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food

and grocery, how would you describe local?6-7 scale responses (%)

26%

29%34%

28%

Male

74%

71%66%

72%

Female

region/town or citystateAustralia100 km of region/town or city

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Females are more likely to define local products as products sourced from anywhere within Australia compared to males.

There were no significant difference between gender and other measures; region, town or city, state or within 100klms.

Determining Local-GeographicWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food and

grocery, how would you describe local?6-7 scale responses (%)

1%

2%1%

1%

18-24 years

16%

15%10%

15%

25-35 years

17%

16%15%

17%

36-45 years

20%

20%19%

21%

46-55 years

23%

22%24%

22%

56-65 years

23%

26%31%

24%

65+ years region/town or city

state

Australia

100 km of region/town or city

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect how they defined ‘Local’.

Determining Local-GeographicWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food and


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 1% 1% 3% 5%11%

77%

region/town ro city (M =6.51)1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3% 2%5%

13%

20%

31%26%

state (M = 5.42)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10%7%

12%

20%22%

14% 15%

Australia (M = 4.38)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2% 2% 3%7%

13%

27%

46%

100 km of region/town or city (M =5.92)

18

Determining Local - Geographic• 88% of responses (agree/strongly agree) determined ‘local food’ to be food

products sourced within their region, town or city. • 73% of responses (agree/strongly agree) determined ‘local food’ to be food

products sourced within 100klms from their home region, town or city. • This suggest most people would rather food and products sourced within their

provenance and three quarters of shoppers are willing to consider distances of at least 100klms.

• There were no differences between age or gender in relation to determining ‘local food’ from a geographical perspective, however female respondents also considered ‘local food’ more broadly to be ‘Australian Made’.

19

Determining Local - Business

• Other than geographic distances, this research sought to identify the type of business and the location of those businesses, mostly associated with ‘local foods’.

• Respondents' (n=1065) were asked to identify business size and location.

20

Determining Local-BusinessWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food


29%

14%


small businesses

large multinational businesses

21

Determining Local-BusinessWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food


29%

35%

Male

71%66%

Female

small businesses large multinational businesses

‘No statistically significant difference’ ’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect how they defined local-business.

22

Determining Local-BusinessWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food and


1%

2%

18-24 years

14%13%

25-35 years

15%14%

36-45 years

20%19%

46-55 years

23%24%

56-65 years

28%28%

65+ years

small businesseslarge multina-tional busi-nesses

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect how they defined local-business.

23

Determining Local-Business

When you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food and grocery, how would you describe local?

1-7 scale responses (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9% 8%

14%

19%21%

17%

12%

small businesses (M = 4.36)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19%

14%

18%

22%

14%

7% 7%

large multinational businesses (M = 3.48)

24

Determining Local-Business & LocationWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food


56%

84%


a small or family-owned business with my state

a small or family business within my region/town or city

25

Determining Local-Business & Location



28%26%

Male

72%74%

Female

a small or family-owned business with my statea small or family business within my region/town or city

‘No statistically significant difference’ ’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect how they defined local-business & location.

26

Determining Local-Business & LocationWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food


2%

1%

18-24 years

14%15%

25-35 years

17%17%

36-45 years

20%21%

46-55 years

23%23%

56-65 years

25%23%

65+ yearsa small or family-owned business with my state

a small or family business within my region/town or city

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect how they defined local-business & location.

27

Determining Local-Business & Location



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3% 3%5%

13%

20%

28% 27%

a small or family-owned business with my state (M = 5.38)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9%1% 2% 5% 7%

19%

65%

a small or family business within my region/town or city (M = 6.32)

28

Determining Local – Business & Location

• Analysis was conducted on responses (Agree/Strongly Agree). Most responses identified that ‘local food’ would be sourced from a small businesses.

• However, attitudes towards this measure were not strong; 19% of respondents had no opinion/didn’t care, 21% only somewhat agreed.

• This suggests that other factors influence a determination of ‘local food’ other than size of business.

• There were no differences identified between age or gender in relation to this measure.• When location of business was added, responses (Agree/Strongly Agree) were more

pronounced.• 84% of responses indicated ‘local food’ should be sourced from small, family owned

businesses within their own region, town or city.• Once again, there were no differences between gender and age in relation to this

measure.

• Accordingly, marketing messages should highlight links with well known, small local, family own businesses.

29

Determining Local – Product Features

• In contrast to previous research that had tended to focus on geographic location to determine ‘local food’, this research explored product features and attributes.

• This research sought to identify if product aspects, attributes or aesthetics, effected shoppers’ perceptions of ‘local foods’.

30

Determining Local-Product FeaturesWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food


32%

41%

37%

42%

28%

21%


Gourmet products

Crafty and homely packaging

Better for you (e.g. less chem-icals)

Great quality products

Boutique products

Expensive products

31

Determining Local-Product FeaturesWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food and


22%

24%

22%24%

23%

25%

Male

78%

76%

78%76%

77%

75%

Female

Gourmet productsCrafty and homely packagingBetter for you (e.g. less chemicals)Great quality productsBoutique productsExpensive products

‘No statistically significant difference’ ’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect how they defined ‘local’ in relation to food and grocery products.

32

Determining Local-Product FeaturesWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food and grocery, how

would you describe local?6-7 scale responses (%)

2%

1%

2%1%

2%

1%

18-24 years

17%

16%

18%17%

17%

19%

25-35 years

15%

17%

14%15%

17%

17%

36-45 years

23%

21%

21%21%

23%

24%

46-55 years

24%

23%

23%22%

22%

21%

56-65 years

20%

21%

22%24%

19%

18%

65+ years Gourmet products

Crafty and homely packaging

Better for you (e.g. less chemicals)

Great quality products

Boutique products

Expensive products

‘No statistically significant difference’ ’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect how they defined ‘local’ in relation to food and grocery products.

33

Determining Local-Product FeaturesWhen you think of the term ‘Local’ in relation to food


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12%7% 9%

23%18%

15% 17%

Gourmet products (M = 4.42)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9% 7% 7%

23%

15%20% 21%

Crafty and homely packaging (M = 4.72)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10%6% 7%

23%

16%18% 19%

Better for you (e.g. less chemicals) (M= 4.58)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8%5% 6%

22%

17%

22% 21%

Great quality products (M = 4.8)

34

Determining Local-Product Features



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11%8%

10%

26%

17% 17%

11%

Boutique products (M = 4.24)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16%

9%11%

27%

16%13%

8%

Expensive products (M = 3.91)

35

Determining Local – Product Features

• Two themes emerge from the data; Health & Wellbeing and Aesthetics.• Measuring only strong responses (Agree/Strongly Agree);

– Health & Wellbeing - Quality (42%) and Good For You (37%)– Aesthetics – Crafty/Homely Packaging (41%) and Gourmet (32%)

• There were no significant statistical differences between age or gender in relation to these measures.

• Respondents reported that ‘local food’ products should meet these parameters.

• These findings will inform suppliers of ‘local food’ products, Local Purchasing Managers and Category Managers to enable successful product implementation and launch.

• Aesthetically, packaging and printed information should be ‘imperfect, rustic, home-made style and hand written’, such as one may find with a simple ‘white chalk on blackboard’ image.

• Marketing appeals should convey messages like; organic, pesticide-free, ‘from your local area’, ‘I’m a Local’.

• These findings may also influence POS imagery decisions.• Further test marketing of treatments would be required.

36

How do Australian Shoppers determine local?

• Our sample of 1065 respondents determined ‘local food’ in several ways; • Geographically – the product should be sourced from within a well known region

or sub-region linked to their provenance (i.e. Gippsland Region, Adelaide Hills, Margaret River, Sunshine Coast Hinterland)– WOW Marketing would need to identify and isolate significantly well known areas and

strategically source products from those areas.

• Distance – to a lesser extent, shoppers accepted products sourced within 100klms to still be considered locally. – This is an important consideration for WOW stores that are not located close to well know and

easily identified regions, and therefore are not able to identify closely with these areas.

• Size of business was not important, however, ‘business & location’ was. Shoppers do not consider the size of enterprise that produces the local product, but the connection between the supplier (producer) and the region was vital.– This finding is important for Local Purchasing Managers when selecting appropriate suppliers. Such

suppliers need to demonstrate strong links and brand equity with their community, region or sub-region.

• Local products and POS should appear aesthetically authentic, not necessarily perfect . Home-style, rustic and convey a message of product integrity, health and wellbeing.

37

Ethnocentrism

• As a factor in consumer behaviour, the construct of consumer ethnocentrism has been empirically established through the development and use of the CETSCALE instrument (Shimp & Sharma, 1987)

• In times of severe competition, firms are highly interested in consolidating their position in their domestic market (Porter, 1990)

• While consumer ethnocentrism, national identity and economic nationalism all reflect a level of discrimination against foreign products, the underlying reason is a domestic preference rather than negativity towards any country in particular (Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen, 2011)

• Academic research has discovered important differences in consumer cognitive processes and behaviour of three demographic characteristics ; age, gender and income (Cooil et al., 2007; Lambert-Pandraud et al., 2005)

38

Ethnocentrism• Most recent research published in the International Marketing Review in 2011

identified the following;

– Older consumers are more ethnocentric than younger consumers– Female consumers are more ethnocentric than male consumers– Level of income has no effect on consumer ethnocentric tendencies– Effect of consumer ethnocentric tendencies on willingness to buy is not significantly influenced by

income– The relationship between consumer ethnocentric tendencies and willingness to buy is stronger for

younger consumers

Ethnocentrism

18-24 years 25-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56-65 years 65+ years

4.7

4.4

4.7

55.1 5.1

Age (mean scores)

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.01)Shoppers aged 46 and over are more likely to feel strongly about purchasing local products compared to those under 46 years of age.

40

Ethnocentrism

Male Female

4.6

5

Gender (mean scores)

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.01)Females are more likely to feel strongly about purchasing local products compared to males.

Ethnocentrism

High sc

hool/Seco

ndary

TAFE/T

rade Certi

ficate

Undergrad

uate

Postgrad

uate

5.23

4.98

4.57 4.56

Education (mean scores)

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.01)Shoppers with low levels of education (high school/secondary and TAFE/Trade Certificate) are more likely to feel strongly about purchasing local products compared to those with higher levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate).

Ethnocentrism

Single/Living alone Married/Defacto/Living

together

Separated/Divorced Widowed

4.73

4.92 4.97

5.29

Relationship status (mean scores)

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p >.05)Shoppers’ relationship status did not affect ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism

Have kids all the time Have kids some of the time No kids

4.84

5.15

4.93

Household type (mean scores)

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p >.05)Shoppers’ household type did not affect ethnocentrism.

44

Ethnocentrism• Results provide managers with a detailed understanding of which consumer

groups are the most consumer ethnocentric– Such knowledge will be essential for segmentation, targeting and product positioning efforts.– Not all domestic consumers express the same extent of ethnocentric tendencies

• While measuring consumer ethnocentrism levels is important, it is not sufficient to understanding the impact of such ethnocentric tendencies on purchase behaviour.– For example, target segments should not just be selected based simply on levels of consumer

ethnocentricity, as some groups may have a low willingness to let their consumer ethnocentric tendencies influence their willingness to purchase.

– Research has found willingness to buy was stronger for younger consumers, although older consumers reported higher levels of ethnocentric tendencies. It is suggested older consumers are more experienced shoppers and are able to separate their ethnocentric views from their buying needs and wants.

45

Ethnocentrism• This research identifies the following;

• Older consumers are more ethnocentric than younger consumers– Supported by international research (Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen, 2011)

• Female consumers are more ethnocentric than male consumers– Supported by international research (Josiassen, Assaf & Karpen, 2011)

• Shoppers with low levels of education are more likely to feel strongly about purchasing local products compared to those with higher levels of education– Supported by international research (Nisha, 1990)

• Consumer status had no effect on level of consumer ethnocentric tendencies• Household type (kids/no kids) no effect on level of consumer ethnocentric

tendencies

46

Attitudes: Benefits of Buying Local

• Extant research has indicated that other than ethnocentric tendencies, consumers are motivated to choose ‘local food’ for other reasons, such as;

– Economic factors– Environmental factors– Ethical factors (Supporting small and local businesses)

• This research collected data pertaining to these constructs.

47


51%

89%

91%


Environmental concerns

Economy

Supporting local farms and local businesses

48


22%

26%

26%

Male

78%

74%

74%

Female

Environmental concerns

Economy


‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.01)Females are more likely to think that it is important to support their local farmers and local business community compared to males.

49


1%

1%

1%

18-24 years

15%

14%

14%

25-35 years

16%

17%

17%

36-45 yearsEnvironmental concerns

Economy


21%

21%

21%

46-55 years

23%

23%

24%

56-65 years

24%

23%

24%

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.01)Shoppers aged 46 and over are more likely to think about benefits of buying local in terms of supporting the Australian economy compared to those aged less than 46 years.

50


36%

34%

34%

High School/Secondary

16%

17%

17%

TAFE/Trade CertificateEnvironmental concerns

Support the Australian economy


18%

19%

19%

Undergraduate

19%

19%

19%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The education level of shoppers did not affect attitudes towards benefits of buying local.

51

Attitudes: Benefits of Buying Local1-7 scale responses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 3% 3%

22% 21%

29%

21%

Environmental concerns (M = 5.32)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0% 0% 0% 4% 7%

25%

63%Economy (M = 6.46)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0% 0% 0% 2% 7%24%

67%

Supporting local farms and local businesses(M = 6.56)

52

Attitudes: Benefits of Buying LocalWorried that local farms will go out of business because food grown for

supermarkets is grown on big farms

47%53%

Scale responses (%) of 1065 grocery shoppers

1-5 scale responses6-7 scale responses

53


supermarkets is grown on big farms6-7 scale responses

23%

77%

Gender

malefemale

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect the concerns for the survival of local farmers.

54



2%

12%

14%

21%27%

25%

Age (6-7 scale responses)

18-24 years

25-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56-65 years

65+ years

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect the concerns for the survival of local farmers.

55



37%

29%

17%

18%

Level of education (6-7 scale responses)

High school/Secondary

TAFE/Trade Certificate

Undergraduate

Postgraduate

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers with low education levels (high school/secondary) are more likely to be concerned with the survival of local farmers than those with high education levels (undergraduate and postgraduate).

56


supermarkets is grown on big farms1-7 scale responses (M = 5.46)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 2% 4%

18%23% 25%

28%

Correlations between ‘concerns for the survival of local farmers’ and ‘availability ‘

‘Concerns for the survival of local farmers’ has a positive correlation with ‘locally produced foods should be more available in supermarkets’ (r = 0.42, p < 0.01).

57

Attitudes: Benefits of Buying Local• Analysis was conducted on responses (Agree/Strongly Agree). Supporting the local

economy (2 x measures) was determined to be the most important motivation to encourage consumers to purchase ‘local foods and products’.– 91% of responses reported supporting ‘local farms and businesses’ was a distinct benefit of

purchasing local foods and products. – 89% of responses reported that by buying local food and products, they perceived they would be

supporting the local economy.– Environmental factors were more disbursed (22% of responses reported ‘don’t care’)

• There were significant differences detected in age and gender, identifying older female consumers were more concerned with the relationship between purchasing ‘local food and products’ and ‘local economic dynamics’.

• There were no significant differences detected within levels of education.

• Marketing appeals should convey messages linked to local economy, regional commerce, local economic development and investment, not necessarily (to a lesser extent) environmental issues, green supply chains and shortened distribution.

58

Attitudes: Benefits of Buying Local• Analysis was conducted on responses (Agree/Strongly Agree) on concerns that

local farms will go out of business because of the perception food grown for supermarkets is grown on big farms.

• This appears to be an underlying theme – 53% of responses indicated agreed/strongly agreed with this statement, 47% to a lesser extent.

• There was no difference between age or gender in relation to this perception, however, there was a significant statistical difference with ‘level of education’.– Less educated consumers had the perception that all food grown for large supermarkets, was sources

from large commercial operations and that there was a real chance smaller family owned operations would close.

• Correlations indicated a 42% variance between ‘local foods being made available in supermarkets’ and ‘ survival of small local farms’.– A positive, strong belief that if local foods and products were more readily available in major

supermarkets, small family owned farms and businesses will survive.

• A consumer education campaign may be necessary to dispel the widely held belief that WOW only sources from large commercial operators and overlooks smaller independent operations.

59

Attitudes: Supporting local and small business

• An emergent theme relating to ‘local food’ was support for local farms, businesses and economies.

• Accordingly, this research examined these items more thoroughly ;

– Perceptions of current hardship in the farming community– Perceptions of government support for farming communities– Perceptions of supermarket support for farming communities

60

Attitudes: Supporting local and small businessHardship and farming communities

31%

69%

Scale responses (%) of 1065 grocery shoppers

1-5 scale responses6-7 scale responses

61

Attitudes: Supporting local and small businessHardship and farming communities

23%

77%

Gender

malefemale

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect the concerns for the hardship of farming communities.

62


Hardship and farming communities

2%

12%

16%

21%24%

26%

Age (6-7 scale responses)

18-24 years

25-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56-65 years

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers aged 56 and over are more likely to be concerned with the hardship of local farming communities compared to those aged 25-35 years.

63


Hardship and farming communities

36%

30%

17%

17%

Level of education (6-7 scale responses)



Undergraduate

Postgraduate

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers with low education levels (high school/secondary) are more likely to be concerned with the hardship of local farming communities than those with higher education levels (TAFE/trade certificate, undergraduate, and postgraduate).

64


Hardship and farming communities1-7 scale responses (M = 5.88)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 1% 3%

10%

17%

28%

41%

65

Attitudes: Supporting local and small businessGovernment support

57%

71%


Not enough government support given to Australian farmers

Australian farmers deserve greater government support

66


Government support6-7 scale responses

24%24%

Male

76%76%

Female

Not enough govern-ment support given to Australian farmers

Australian farmers deserve greater gov-ernment support

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Females are more likely to think Australian farmers deserve greater support from the government compared to males.

67


6-7 scale responses

1%

2%

18-24 years

12%13%

25-35 years

15%16%

36-45 yearsNot enough government support given to Australian farmers

Australian farmers deserve greater government sup-port

22%21%

46-55 years

25%23%

56-65 years

24%25%

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01 and p < .05)Shoppers aged 56 and over are more likely to think the government do not provide much support to Australian farmers compared to those aged less than 56 years.Shoppers aged 56-65 years are more likely to think Australian farmers deserve greater support from the government compared to those aged 25-35 years.

68


6-7 scale responses

38%37%

High school/secondary

30%31%

TAFE/Trade CertificateNot enough government support given to Aus-tralian farmers

Australian farmers deserve greater government sup-port

16%16%

Undergraduate

15%17%

Postgraduate

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Shoppers with low levels of education (high school/secondary) are more likely to think Australian farmers deserve greater support from the government compared to those with higher level of education (postgraduate).

69


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2% 3% 6%14% 17%

23%

35%

Not enough government support given to Australian farmers (M = 5.47)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 1% 2%10%

15%

28%

44%

Australian farmers deserve greater gov-ernment support (M = 5.93)

70

Attitudes: Supporting local and small businessSupermarket support

83%

50%


Australian farmers deserve greater supermarket support

Not enough supermarket support given to Australian farmers

71


Supermarket support6-7 scale responses

25%26%

Male

75%74%

Female

Australian farmers deserve greater supermarket sup-port


‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Females are more likely to think Australian farmers deserve greater support from the supermarkets and the supermarkets do not provide much support to Australian farmers compared to males.

72


6-7 scale responses

1%

2%

18-24 years

14%15%

25-35 years

17%17%

36-45 yearsAustralian farmers deserve greater supermarket sup-port


24%24%

56-65 years

24%23%

65+ years

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect shoppers’ attitudes towards supermarket support.

20%19%

46-55 years

73


Supermarket support6-7 scale responses

36%36%


30%29%

TAFE/Trade CertificateAustralian farmers deserve greater supermarket sup-port

Not enough supermarket support given to Aus-tralian farmers

17%18%

Undergraduate

18%18%

Postgraduate

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers with low levels of education (high school/secondary) are more likely to think Australian farmers deserve greater support from supermarkets compared to those with higher level of education (TAFE/Trade Certificate).

74


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0% 1% 1% 4%12%

30%

52%

Australian farmers deserve greater supermarket support (M = 6.27)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 3%8%

16%

25% 24% 24%

Not enough supermarket support given to Australian farmers (M = 5.30)

75

Attitudes: Supporting local and small businessGovernment Support VS Supermarket Support

58%56%


Government Support

Supermarket Support

The correlation values between government support and supermarket support were from r = 0.45 to r = 0.70, p < 0.01.

76


Government Support VS Supermarket Support6-7 scale responses

23%25%

Male

77%76%

Female

Government Support

Supermarket Support

.‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Gender did not affect shoppers’ attitudes towards government and supermarket support of Australian farmers.

77

Attitudes: Supporting local and small businessGovernment Support VS Supermarket Support

6-7 scale responses

1%1%

18-24 years

12%14%

25-35 years

15%16%

36-45 years

Government Support

Supermarket Support

22%20%

46-55 years

24%25%

56-65 years

25%24%

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers aged 56-65 years are more likely to have attitudes towards government support of Australian farmers compared to those age 25-45 years.

78


Government Support VS Supermarket Support6-7 scale responses

39%38%


31%27%


Government Support

Supermarket Support

15%18%

Undergraduate

15%17%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ levels of education did not affect their attitudes towards government and supermarket support of Australian farmers.

79

Attitudes: Supporting Local and small business

• Responses indicate a genuine and significant concern of the viability of farming in Australia – Nearly 70% of responses indicated strong agreement that the Australian farming sector is suffering from great hardship.– This concern was more pronounce in older (+56), less educated consumers

• 57% of responses (agree/strongly agree) – Governments are not doing enough to support farmers – 71% of responses (agree/strongly agree) – Governments should do more

• 50% of responses (agree/strongly agree) – Supermarkets are not doing enough to support farmers – 83% of responses (agree/strongly agree) – Supermarkets should do more

• Correlations indicated consumers considered both government and major supermarkets need to do more for the farming community.

• WOW leadership team should engage with all levels of government and other

industry groups (NFF) and develop programs around sourcing, seed funding and education programs. Respondents indicate the support of Australian farming communities will require a joint effort.

80

Awareness

• It has been previously identified in this research that consumers perceived supermarkets were not doing enough to support local farmers and a very strong belief that supermarkets should do more.

• This research now examines the level of awareness in relation to the availably of local foods and products.

• Specifically, this research measures;– Locally produced foods should be more available in my supermarket– Locally produced foods are available in my supermarket– I can find locally produced foods in my supermarket

81

Awareness

86%

20%

47%


I believe locally produced foods should be made more available in my supermarket.

I believe major supermarkets provide a good range of locally produced foods.

I can find locally produced foods in my neighbourhood.

82

Awareness

6-7 scale responses

25%

32%

28%

Male

75%

69%

72%

Female I believe locally produced foods should be made more available in my su-permarket.

I believe major super-markets provide a good range of locally produced foods.

I can find locally produced foods in my neighbour-hood.

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Females are more likely to believe locally produced foods should be made more available in supermarkets compared to males.

83

Awareness

1%

2%

1%

18-24 years

14%

12%

16%

25-35 years

17%

19%

17%

36-45 years I believe locally produced foods should be made more available in my supermarket.



20%

20%

18%

46-55 years

24%

24%

22%

56-65 years

24%

24%

25%

65+ years

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Age group did not affect shoppers’ awareness of buying locally produced foods.

84

Awareness6-7 scale responses

34%

41%

34%


30%

29%

28%

TAFE/Trade Certificate I believe locally produced foods should be made more available in my supermarket.



18%

13%

19%

Undergraduate

19%

18%

20%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Levels of education did not affect shoppers’ awareness of buying locally produced foods.

85

Awareness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0% 0% 0% 4% 10%

27%

59%

I believe locally produced foods should be made more available in my super-

market (M = 6.39 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5%10%

19% 16%

29%

13%7%

I believe major supermarkets provide a good range of locally produced food (M =

4.22 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1%5%

9% 11%

28%32%

15%

I can find locally produced foods in my neighbourhood (M = 5.14 )

86

Awareness• There was a very strong position expressed that ‘local foods and products’ should be

made more available in supermarkets – 86% of responses indicated strongly agree/agree to this statement.

• Less than half (47%) (strongly agree/agree responses) indicated locally produced foods were easy to find in their supermarket

• Alarmingly, only 20% (strongly agree/agree responses) advised major supermarkets currently provided a good range of locally produced foods and products.

• There was no significant differences in responses across age or education, however, female respondents were more likely to believe local foods and products should be made more available.

• These findings will influence POS imagery decisions. It is recommended that shelf striping, wobblers, barker cards should be affixed to locally produced foods and products to raise awareness.

• Messages, that convey connectedness will be important, i.e. “Hi, I’m a Local”.• A national roll out of such POS may negate, to some extent, excessive cost associated

with sourcing and ranging of new products. Increasing awareness of current local ranges may produce increased levels of consumer loyalty.

87

Subjective Norms

• Consumer behaviour research indicates that ‘others’ around us may influence our purchase decisions.

• This research sought to examine the extent subjective norms influenced ‘local food’ purchase behaviour;

– Friends– People who are important to us (public leaders, celebrities, athletes)– Family– People who influence my buying behaviour (work colleagues, children)

88

Subjective norms

37%

26%

20%

30%


Friends

People who are important to me

People who influence my buy-ing behaviour

My family

89

Subjective norms

6-7 scale responses

27%

27%27%

25%

Male

73%

73%73%

75%

FemaleFriends


People who influence my buying behaviour

My family

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect subjective norms.

90

Subjective norms6-7 scale responses

1%

1%

1%

2%

18-24 years

15%

12%11%

12%

25-35 years

14%

13%12%

13%

36-45 years Friends



My family

18%

17%19%

19%

46-55 years

24%

29%27%

26%

56-65 years

29%

29%29%

28%

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01 and p < .05)Shoppers aged 46-55 years are more likely to think their friends influence their purchase compared to those aged 25-45 years. Shoppers aged 46-55 years are more likely to think their family influence their purchase compared to those aged 36-45 years.

91

Subjective norms6-7 scale responses

39%

40%43%

40%


29%

27%27%

30%

TAFE/Trade Certificate Friends



My family

16%

16%15%

15%

Undergraduate

17%

16%16%

15%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ levels of education did not affect subjective norms.

92

Subjective norms

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3% 3% 4%

42%

11%18% 19%

Friends (M = 4.85)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4% 6% 5%

46%

13% 16%10%

People who are important to me (M = 4.45)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6% 9% 7%

44%

13% 12% 8%

People who influence my buying behaviour (M = 4.16)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4% 5% 5%

40%

15% 17% 13%

My family (M = 4.62)

93

Subjective Norms • Results indicated family and friends more heavily influenced purchase decisions of

‘local food’• There was no significant differences in relation to gender or education, however,

older consumers (+45) were more heavily influenced.

• These findings will influence POS imagery, TVC’s and advertising content.• It is recommended that creative briefs should convey messages and images of

family and friends, sharing fresh locally grown foods. • Emotional linking possibly a parents’ job (fruit picking or harvesting produce) at a

local farm with eating that food at dinner with their family and friends.• Messages that buying local creates and sustains local jobs.

94

Connectedness

• Previous literature that suggested ‘connectedness’ as a factor in alternative food networks such as those defined as ‘locally produced’ (Coit, 2008; Holloway and Kneafsey, 2004

• Local community engagement provides a vehicle for social connectedness and enables members to achieve common goals. Social connectedness is linked not only an individual consumers’ wellbeing, but the wellbeing broadly of the whole community.

• This research sought to examine the extent of reported connectedness when shoppers buy ‘local food’ with;– Their community– The producer– Their supermarket

95

Connectedness

56%

47%

50%


Connectedness with the communityConnectedness with the producerConnectedness towards supermarket

96

Connectedness

6-7 scale responses

23%

24%

23%

Male

77%

76%

77%

FemaleConnectedness with the community

Connectedness with the producer

Connectedness towards supermarket

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect connectedness.

97

Connectedness6-7 scale responses

1%

1%

2%

18-24 years

13%

11%

13%

25-35 years

16%

15%

15%

36-45 years Connectedness with the community



21%

23%

21%

46-55 years

24%

24%

25%

56-65 years

24%

25%

24%

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers aged 46 and over are more likely to feel they connect with the community compared to those aged 36-45 years.

98

Connectedness6-7 scale responses

35%

36%

40%


29%

29%

28%

TAFE/Trade Certificate Connectedness with the community



18%

18%

16%

Undergraduate

18%

18%

17%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Levels of education did not affect connectedness.

99

Connectedness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 2% 2%

15%24%

34%

22%

Connectedness with the community (M = 5.50)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1%4% 4%

18%

27% 28%

19%

Connectedness with the producer (M = 5.24)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1% 2% 2%

20%25%

32%

18%

Connectedness towards Supermarket (M = 5.35)

100

Connectedness• Interestingly, higher responses (agree/strongly agree) indicated that after

purchasing locally produced foods, consumers felt a greater connectedness with their community. This may relate to economic ethnocentric tendencies, that it; ‘I buy local, I support my community’s economy.

• There were favourable (positive responses - agree/strongly agree) toward a connection with both the producer and the supermarket selling ‘local food’.

• No differences detected between gender or education, however, older consumers more likely to feel they connect with the community compared to younger.

• These findings will influence POS imagery, TVC’s and advertising content.• Linked to Social Norms, it is recommended that creative briefs should convey

messages and images of the connectedness to broader community appeals.• Linking buying local products from their supermarket, with local charity groups,

sporting clubs, etc... • Explaining how shoppers can ‘connect’ with their local community, buy simply

buying local products and supporting farmers and family owned businesses.

101

Intentions to purchase

• This research captured both ‘Intentions to purchase local foods and products’ and the antecedents of intentions.– There is a risk in measuring intentions, as opposed to actual purchase behaviours, as unforseen

barriers may exist between those positive attitudes (intentions) and behaviours (purchases).

• Such barriers may be, lack of knowledge, financial constraints, lack of awareness, lack of supply or lack of experience with the local product.

• More importantly, this research measured drivers (antecedents) of intentions to purchase ‘local food’.

102

Intentions to Purchase

5%

14%

32%

48%

1-7 scale responses (%) of 1065 grocery shoppers (M = 6.22)

1234567

103

Intentions to Purchase

28%

72%

Gender (1-7 scale responses (%)

malefemale

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Females are more likely to intend to buy locally sourced products compared to males.

104


1%

16%

17%

20%

23%

23%

Age (1-7 scale responses (%))

18-24 years

25-35 years

36-45 years

46-55 years

56-65 years

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers aged 46 and over are more likely to intend to buy locally sourced products compared to those aged less than 46 years.

105


33%

29%

19%

19%

Level of education (1-7 scale responses (%))



Undergraduate

Postgraduate

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .01)Shoppers with low education levels (high school/secondary) are more likely to intend to buy locally sourced products than those with higher education levels (undergraduate).

106

Antecedents of Intentions to purchase

Significance level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001

The correlation coefficient values were from r = 0.16 to r = 0.65, p < 0.01.

107


• 95% of responses indicated a willingness to by locally produced foods and products, if they were readily available in their supermarket. No respondents indicated they would not purchase.

• Older less educated female shoppers were more likely to make purchases.• ‘Extent of connectedness’ was the largest driver of purchase intentions, followed

by ‘Benefits of buying local’. • The five constructs measured for this research captured 78% of the drivers leading

to purchase intentions of ‘local food’.

• These findings will influence POS imagery, TVC’s and marketing content.• WOW should develop campaigns around community engagement

(connectedness) and the broader benefits of buying local (supporting local farmers and small businesses).

• Other antecedents, such as awareness and subjective norms, effected purchase intentions to a lesser extent.

108

How important is ‘Local’ across categories

• Major supermarkets today carry a broad range of product and foods– Some of these products are considered low involvement purchases, others high involvement– Extent of involvement is to stable and will change across demographics

• It is suggested that within some categories, ‘local’ will be a important attribute effecting choice, whereas in other categories, ‘local’ may be consider less important.

• This research sought to identify which categories consumers considered to be vitally important to be sourced locally.

109


57%44%

82%

38%

21%

47%

68%

23%

50%

Region/town or city (% 1,065 grocery shoppers)

Shoppers prefer to have bakery products sourced from within their region, town or city.

110


50%56%

26%

41%

28%

58%

45%

27%

47%

State (% 1,065 grocery shoppers)

Shoppers prefer to have dairy products sourced from within their state.

111


54% 51%

18%

65% 68%

43%

21%

65%

51%

Anywhere in Australia (% 1,065 grocery shoppers)

Shoppers prefer to have wine & beer sourced from anywhere in Australia.

112


1%0% 0%

4%

11%

3%

0%

11%

1%

Overseas (% 1,065 grocery shoppers)

Shoppers prefer to have wine & beer as well as chocolate & confectionery products sourced from overseas.

113


2% 2% 2%

7%

21%

3%1%

22%

5%

Don’t care (% 1,065 grocery shoppers)

Shoppers don’t care where chocolate & confectionery products are sourced from.

114


• Within the closest proximity (town, region and city) consumers the following three categories should be sourced locally;– Bakery products (82%), Eggs (68%) and Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (57%)

• Within the consumers’ home state;– Dairy (58%), Meat (56%) and Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (50%)

• Within Australia;– Wine and Beer (68%), Jams/Spreads (65%) and Confectionery/Chocolate (65%)

• Bakery products and Eggs significantly decrease the further away from locality.• Wine/Beer and Confectionery/Chocolate categories is not effected by locality.

• These findings will influence decisions regarding which categories to increase the proportion of local product range in as a priority.

• A progressive approach to driving ‘local’ awareness in Bakery, Eggs, Fresh Produce, and too a lesser extent, Dairy and Meat, may limit excessive costs associated with sourcing and ranging of new products.

115

Factors that influence the purchase of ‘Local’ foods

• Finally, this research sought to identify and confirm any other factors that influenced the purchase of local foods and product.

• The following items were measured;

– Location of production– Brand, cost, convenience, safety and quality– Taste/flavour, product aesthetics and packaging– Novelty and community

116

Factors that influence the purchase of ‘Local’ foodsProduct origin

58%

55%

59%


Produced/grown in my town/region or city

Produced/grown in my state

Produced/grown in Australia

117


Product origin6-7 scale responses (%)

23%

23%

24%

Male

77%

77%

76%

Female

Produced/grown in my town/region or city



‘No statistically significant difference’ ’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect product origin.

118



1%

1%

1%

18-24 years

11%

11%

12%

25-35 years

16%

15%

15%

36-45 years Produced/grown in my town/region or city



23%

23%

23%

46-55 years

26%

27%

25%

56-65 years

24%

24%

25%

65+ years

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect product origin.

119



35%

36%

37%


29%

29%

27%

TAFE/Trade Certificate Produced/grown in my town/region or city



17%

16%

17%

Undergraduate

19%

19%

19%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The education level of shoppers did not affect product origin.

120



9%

8%

9%

Single/Living alone

79%

80%

80%

Married/Defacto/Living together Produced/grown in my town/region or city



8%

8%

8%

Separated/Divorced

4%

4%

4%

Widowed

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The relationship status of shoppers did not affect product origin.

121



36%

37%

36%

Have kids all the time

6%

5%

5%

Have kids some of the time

Produced/grown in my town/region or cityProduced/grown in my stateProduced/grown in Australia

58%

58%

59%

No kids

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The household of shoppers did not affect product origin.

122

Factors that influence the purchase of ‘Local’ foodsBrand & reputation, cost, convenience, safety, and quality

78%

58%

41%

84%

88%


Brand & reputation Cost

Convenience Safety

Quality

123



27%

25%

24%

27%

27%

Male

73%

75%

76%

74%

73%

Female

Brand & reputa-tion

Cost

Convenience

Safety

Quality

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect brand & reputation, cost, convenience, safety, and quality.

124



1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

18-24 years

16%

18%16%

13%

14%

25-35 years

16%

17%

17%

16%

16%

36-45 years Brand & reputation

Cost

Convenience

Safety

Quality

21%

20%

19%

21%

21%

46-55 years

24%

21%

23%

25%

24%

56-65 years

22%

22%

23%

24%

24%

65+ years

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect brand & reputation, cost, convenience, safety, and quality.

125



33%

36%

38%

34%

33%


28%

28%

27%

28%

29%

TAFE/Trade Certificate Brand & reputation

Cost

Convenience

Safety

Quality

20%

18%

17%

19%

19%

Undergraduate

20%

18%

18%

19%

20%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The education level of shoppers did not affect brand & reputation, cost, convenience, safety, and quality.

126



11%

12%

12%

10%

11%

Single/Living alone

78%

75%

76%

78%

78%

Married/Defacto/Living together Brand & reputation

Cost

Convenience

Safety

Quality

8%

10%

9%

8%

8%

Separated/Divorced

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

Widowed

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Shoppers who are separated/divorced are more likely to think safety is the factor that influences their purchase decisions compared to those who are single/living alone and married/defacto/living together.

127



36%

40%

37%

35%

35%


5%

5%

5%

5%

5%


Brand & reputationCostConvenienceSafetyQuality

59%

55%

58%

59%

59%

No kids

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The household of shoppers did not affect brand & reputation, cost, convenience, safety, and quality.

128


Taste and Aesthetics

58%

55%

59%


Taste/flavour

Look of the product

Look of packaging

129


Taste and Aesthetics6-7 scale responses (%)

23%

23%

24%

Male

77%

77%

76%

Female

Taste/flavour

Look of the product

Look of packaging

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.05)Females are more likely to think taste/flavour is the factor that influences their purchase decisions compared to males.

130

Factors that influence the purchase of ‘Local’ foodsTaste and Aesthetics6-7 scale responses (%)

1%

1%

1%

18-24 years

11%

11%

12%

25-35 years

16%

15%

15%

36-45 yearsTaste/flavour

Look of the product

Look of packaging

23%

23%

23%

46-55 years

26%

27%

25%

56-65 years

24%

24%

25%

65+ years

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ age group did not affect taste and aesthetics.

131


29%

29%

27%

TAFE/Trade CertificateTaste/flavour

Look of the product

Look of packaging

35%

36%

37%


17%

16%

17%

Undergraduate

19%

19%

19%

Postgraduate

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The education level of shoppers did not affect taste and aesthetics.

132


9%

8%

9%

Single/Living alone

79%

80%

80%

Married/Defacto/Living togetherTaste/flavour

Look of the product

Look of packaging

8%

8%

8%

Separated/Divorced

4%

4%

4%

Widowed

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The relationship status of shoppers did not affect taste and aesthetics.

133


36%

37%

36%


6%

5%

5%


Taste/flavourLook of the productLook of packaging

58%

58%

59%

No kids

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The household of shoppers did not affect taste and aesthetics.

134


Novelty and Community

58%55%


Novelty Community

135


Novelty and Community6-7 scale responses (%)

26%24%

Male

74%77%

Female

Novelty

Community

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)Shoppers’ gender did not affect novelty and community.

136

Factors that influence the purchase of ‘Local’ foodsNovelty and Community


1%1%

18-24 years

15%

10%

25-35 years

14%16%

36-45 years

Novelty

Community

23%22%

46-55 years

24%26%

56-65 years

24%26%

65+ years

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p <.01)Shoppers aged 46 and over are more likely to think supporting small business is the factor that influences their purchase decisions compared to those aged 36-45 years.

137



38%38%


29%30%


Novelty

Community

15%15%

Undergraduate

17%17%

Postgraduate

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Shoppers with low levels of education (High school/Secondary) are more likely to think supporting small business is the factor that influences their purchase decisions compared to those with high levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate).

138



10%11%

Single/Living alone

76%78%

Married/Defacto/Living together

Novelty Community

11%8%

Separated/Divorced

3%4%

Widowed

‘No statistically significant difference’ (p > .05)The relationship status of shoppers did not affect novelty and community.

139

Novelty and Community6-7 scale responses (%)


38%34%


4%5%


Novelty Community

58%61%

No kids

‘Statistically significant difference’ (p < .05)Shoppers who have no kids and have kids some of the time are more likely to think supporting small business is the factor that influences their purchase decisions compared to those who have kids all the time.

140


• Responses (agree/strongly agree) were captured• Product origin – Must be made in Australia and preferably, within local town,

region or city• Quality, safety, brand and reputation of local product important

– No significant statistical differences between gender, age, education, stats or household type

• Taste and look of product and packaging – important, but not as important as quality, safety, brand and reputation – Female consumers more concerns with taste and flavour

• Novelty (newness of local product) and community – important, but not as important as quality, safety, brand and reputation

• These findings will guide the selection of products and local suppliers• Brand and reputation will be determined from local market research. i.e. Within

each town or region, what is the most well known, trust local brand.

141

Conclusion• Responses from 1065 primary grocery shoppers, relating to consumer purchase

intentions of locally produced and grown foods and products, where captured and analysed. A summary of recommendations follows;

•Well know, SME’s, with strong local brand equity, should be strategically targeted and recruited

• The packaging of newly sourced, or re-launched, local products should look aesthetically authentic, rustic, artisan or home-made, as should ‘Local’ POS.

• POS should keep messages short, but link to ‘connectedness’, such as barker cards, shelf striping and wobblers, with the message, ‘I’m a Local’

• A national roll out of such POS may raise consumer awareness of currently available local foods and product. There is a risk that excessive sourcing of local products may negatively impact supply chain efficiency.

• A progressive approach to driving ‘local’ awareness in Bakery, Eggs, Fresh Produce, and to a lesser extent, Dairy and Meat, may limit excessive costs associated with sourcing and ranging of new products.

142

Conclusion

• Emotionally linking possibly a parents’ job (fruit picking or harvesting produce) at a local farm with eating that food at dinner with their family and friends

• A consumer education campaign may be necessary to dispel the widely held belief that large supermarkets only source from large commercial operators

•WOW leadership team should engage with all levels of government and other industry groups (NFF) and develop programs around sourcing, funding and education programs

• Purchase intentions of local food appear most driven by ‘connectedness’ and the broader ‘benefits of buying local’, accordingly;

• Marketing appeals should convey messages linked to local economy, regional commerce, local economic development and investment, not necessarily (to a lesser extent) environmental issues, green supply chains and shortened distribution.

• Creative briefs should convey messages and images of family and friends, sharing fresh locally grown foods together.

leaders in local: exploring consumers‘ purchase intentions of locally produced foods

Documents

local leaders

local effects

purchase101importance

local governments

local food purchase

best market local

local products shimp

producedgrown foods