{"title":"A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood","authors":"D. Petrolia, W. Walton, S. Acquah","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2528576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three restaurant taste panels and an online consumer survey were conducted during 2012-2013 to assess whether Gulf consumers would be willing to pay a premium for place-name specific (i.e., “branded”) Gulf oysters over typical “generic” Gulf oysters, and whether consumers in other U.S. markets would be willing to pay for branded Gulf oysters compared to other U.S. branded oysters. Panelists in the two Gulf Coast taste panels had strong preferences for local oyster varieties when they were aware of oyster variety names and harvest locations (i.e., during labeled rounds). In the absence this information (i.e., during blind rounds), panelists had no such preferences, and in the case of the Houston taste panel, actually had a significant distaste for the local Galveston Bay variety. Panelists in the Chicago taste panel had strong preferences for the Island Creek oyster, in both the blinded and labeled rounds, although during the labeled rounds, the Point aux Pins oysters fared equally well (statistically) to the Island Creeks. Additionally, during the labeled rounds, the Apalachicola Bay and Point aux Pins oysters were statistically more likely to be chosen over the San Antonio Bay oysters. Respondents to the online survey tended to have higher perceptions of quality and seafood safety regarding their own regionally-produced oysters relative to oysters from other regions. There was limited variation in perceptions from one Gulf Coast variety to another, with the exception of the Apalachicola Bay variety being rated higher in several cases, and the more general “Gulf of Mexico” category being rated lower. Online survey results indicate that, consumers living in eastern Gulf states such as Georgia and Florida may be willing to pay a premium for branded Gulf oysters, particularly oysters from Florida and Louisiana. Gulf consumers living in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, however, did not show any strong preferences for branded oysters relative to cheaper generic ones. Among non-Gulf consumers, survey results indicate that while a price discount may be needed to sell branded Gulf oysters relative to local oysters (i.e., relative to, say, East Coast oysters in East Coast markets), that Gulf oysters generally fared no worse than other non-local oysters (i.e., West Coast oysters in East Coast markets). Of the Gulf oysters tested, Atlantic Coast respondents appear to prefer Louisiana oysters. Pacific Coast respondents appear to be indifferent between most Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast varieties. Also, it appears that relatively few respondents were concerned about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill when answering questions about oysters, although these concerns did affect preferences for Gulf Coast oysters negatively in some cases. Less than 1% of all respondents indicated any concern regarding Vibrio vulnificus, bacteria, or similar. However, such concerns, though not cited explicitly, may yet be latent in the reported perceptions of oysters from various Gulf Coast locations. These results would indicate that there is some room for opportunity for branded Gulf Coast oysters along these other two coasts in places where other non-local oysters are marketed successfully. The major challenge appears to be whether the price discount necessary to entice consumers in these other markets to buy Gulf Coast oysters relative to local varieties is yet sufficiently high as to remain a profitable enterprise for Gulf Coast producers. The price discounts estimated here in the range of $5-$10 per half-dozen sounds like a steep discount, but given the large differential in retail prices in Atlantic and Pacific markets - where oysters retail anywhere from $15 to $25 per half-dozen-- compared to Gulf Coast markets – where they retail in the neighborhood of $7 to $10 -- it is possible that even with the discounts, the prices received in these alternative markets may remain profitable.","PeriodicalId":107048,"journal":{"name":"Food Industry eJournal","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Industry eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2528576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Three restaurant taste panels and an online consumer survey were conducted during 2012-2013 to assess whether Gulf consumers would be willing to pay a premium for place-name specific (i.e., “branded”) Gulf oysters over typical “generic” Gulf oysters, and whether consumers in other U.S. markets would be willing to pay for branded Gulf oysters compared to other U.S. branded oysters. Panelists in the two Gulf Coast taste panels had strong preferences for local oyster varieties when they were aware of oyster variety names and harvest locations (i.e., during labeled rounds). In the absence this information (i.e., during blind rounds), panelists had no such preferences, and in the case of the Houston taste panel, actually had a significant distaste for the local Galveston Bay variety. Panelists in the Chicago taste panel had strong preferences for the Island Creek oyster, in both the blinded and labeled rounds, although during the labeled rounds, the Point aux Pins oysters fared equally well (statistically) to the Island Creeks. Additionally, during the labeled rounds, the Apalachicola Bay and Point aux Pins oysters were statistically more likely to be chosen over the San Antonio Bay oysters. Respondents to the online survey tended to have higher perceptions of quality and seafood safety regarding their own regionally-produced oysters relative to oysters from other regions. There was limited variation in perceptions from one Gulf Coast variety to another, with the exception of the Apalachicola Bay variety being rated higher in several cases, and the more general “Gulf of Mexico” category being rated lower. Online survey results indicate that, consumers living in eastern Gulf states such as Georgia and Florida may be willing to pay a premium for branded Gulf oysters, particularly oysters from Florida and Louisiana. Gulf consumers living in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, however, did not show any strong preferences for branded oysters relative to cheaper generic ones. Among non-Gulf consumers, survey results indicate that while a price discount may be needed to sell branded Gulf oysters relative to local oysters (i.e., relative to, say, East Coast oysters in East Coast markets), that Gulf oysters generally fared no worse than other non-local oysters (i.e., West Coast oysters in East Coast markets). Of the Gulf oysters tested, Atlantic Coast respondents appear to prefer Louisiana oysters. Pacific Coast respondents appear to be indifferent between most Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast varieties. Also, it appears that relatively few respondents were concerned about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill when answering questions about oysters, although these concerns did affect preferences for Gulf Coast oysters negatively in some cases. Less than 1% of all respondents indicated any concern regarding Vibrio vulnificus, bacteria, or similar. However, such concerns, though not cited explicitly, may yet be latent in the reported perceptions of oysters from various Gulf Coast locations. These results would indicate that there is some room for opportunity for branded Gulf Coast oysters along these other two coasts in places where other non-local oysters are marketed successfully. The major challenge appears to be whether the price discount necessary to entice consumers in these other markets to buy Gulf Coast oysters relative to local varieties is yet sufficiently high as to remain a profitable enterprise for Gulf Coast producers. The price discounts estimated here in the range of $5-$10 per half-dozen sounds like a steep discount, but given the large differential in retail prices in Atlantic and Pacific markets - where oysters retail anywhere from $15 to $25 per half-dozen-- compared to Gulf Coast markets – where they retail in the neighborhood of $7 to $10 -- it is possible that even with the discounts, the prices received in these alternative markets may remain profitable.
2012-2013年期间进行了三个餐厅口味小组和一项在线消费者调查,以评估海湾消费者是否愿意为特定地名(即“品牌”)的海湾牡蛎而不是典型的“普通”海湾牡蛎支付溢价,以及其他美国市场的消费者是否愿意为品牌海湾牡蛎而不是其他美国品牌牡蛎付费。两个墨西哥湾沿岸品尝小组的小组成员在知道牡蛎品种名称和收获地点时(即在标记回合期间)对当地牡蛎品种有强烈的偏好。在没有这些信息的情况下(即,在盲轮期间),小组成员没有这样的偏好,在休斯顿口味小组的情况下,实际上对当地的加尔维斯顿湾品种有明显的厌恶。芝加哥品尝小组的成员在盲法和标记法两轮中都对岛溪牡蛎有强烈的偏好,尽管在标记法两轮中,针点牡蛎的表现与岛溪牡蛎一样好(统计上)。此外,在标记的回合中,统计数据显示,阿巴拉契科拉湾和Point aux Pins牡蛎比圣安东尼奥湾牡蛎更有可能被选中。与来自其他地区的牡蛎相比,在线调查的受访者往往对自己地区生产的牡蛎的质量和海鲜安全有更高的认识。除了阿巴拉契科拉湾(Apalachicola Bay)的品种在某些情况下被评为较高,而更普遍的“墨西哥湾”(Gulf of Mexico)的品种被评为较低外,不同墨西哥湾沿岸品种的看法差异有限。在线调查结果显示,生活在东部海湾州,如乔治亚州和佛罗里达州的消费者可能愿意为品牌海湾牡蛎支付更高的价格,特别是来自佛罗里达州和路易斯安那州的牡蛎。然而,生活在阿拉巴马州、密西西比州、路易斯安那州和德克萨斯州的海湾消费者对名牌牡蛎的偏好并不比便宜的普通牡蛎强。在非海湾地区的消费者中,调查结果表明,虽然海湾地区的名牌牡蛎相对于当地的牡蛎(即,相对于东海岸市场上的东海岸牡蛎)可能需要价格折扣,但海湾地区的牡蛎通常并不比其他非当地的牡蛎(即东海岸市场上的西海岸牡蛎)差。在测试的墨西哥湾牡蛎中,大西洋沿岸的受访者似乎更喜欢路易斯安那州的牡蛎。太平洋沿岸的受访者似乎对大多数大西洋沿岸和墨西哥湾沿岸的品种漠不关心。此外,在回答有关牡蛎的问题时,似乎相对较少的受访者关心深水地平线石油泄漏,尽管这些担忧确实在某些情况下对墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的偏好产生了负面影响。不到1%的受访者表示对创伤弧菌、细菌或类似物有任何担忧。然而,这样的担忧,虽然没有明确地引用,但可能在报道中对来自墨西哥湾沿岸各个地区的牡蛎的看法中是潜在的。这些结果表明,在其他非本地牡蛎成功销售的地方,墨西哥湾沿岸品牌牡蛎在其他两个海岸有一定的机会空间。主要的挑战似乎是,为了吸引其他市场的消费者购买墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎,相对于当地品种,价格折扣是否足够高,以使墨西哥湾沿岸的生产商仍然有利可图。据估计,这里每半打牡蛎的价格折扣在5美元到10美元之间,听起来像是一个很大的折扣,但考虑到大西洋和太平洋市场的零售价格差异很大——那里的牡蛎每半打零售价在15美元到25美元之间——而墨西哥湾沿岸市场的零售价在7美元到10美元之间——即使有折扣,这些其他市场的价格可能仍然有利可图。